Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: The House has made it perfectly clear that it wishes to cover more Questions during this period. This is possible only if there are briefer supplementary questions and if ministerial replies are much briefer than they have been recently.

INDUSTRY

Fairey (Nuclear and Military) Engineers, Stockport

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether the National Enterprise Board has sought approval to purchase Fairey (Nuclear and Military) Engineers, of Crossley Road, Stockport.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Briefly, Sir, Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As he has recently met the shop stewards of Fairey, would he not agree that they are extremely keen that the firm should be taken over by the NEB and not be subjected to the letdowns that come from private industry and private capital?

Mr. Kaufman: I have had meetings with the chairman of the confederated committee of unions on this matter and he has put that view very strongly to me. I have also received letters from a large number of my constituents who are employed at Fairey, and they make the same point equally strongly.

Mr. Arnold: Is the Minister satisfied that this firm has a continuing prospect of success?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes.

Mr. Norman Lamont: As one of the arguments advanced for the NEB is that it is filling a gap not filled by the private sector when it is unwilling to make such an investment, will the Minister tell us what the NEB is doing using taxpayers' money to bid for a company for which there is not one but several private-sector buyers?

Mr. Kaufman: It is following the guidelines laid down for it, which include extending public ownership into profitable private enterprise, and it is respecting the wishes of the work force, which wants the NEB to take over the firm.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Hodgson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I am in continuing contact with Sir Charles Villiers about the problem of the steel industry.

Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the BSC's cynical, deliberate and continued rundown of the steel industry in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire, which is throwing thousands of men out of work and causing them to lose their dignity? Is it not a total disgrace that Scottish oil revenues to the Government are now about £1,000 million a year yet no start has been made on an integrated steelworks at Hunterston? Given the succession of BSC's arrogant failures in Scotland, will the Secretary of State advocate the establishment of a Scottish steel corporation, answerable to the Assembly and funded from the Scottish oil revenues, which are required for the regeneration of the Scottish steel industry?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister try to answer two out of those three questions?

Mr. Varley: It might be suggested that the hon. Gentleman was making crude political advantage for the SNP out of the difficulties of the BSC. In fact, over the last few years the Scottish division of the BSC has done remarkably well. It has received £120 million worth of investment out of a total investment by the Corporation of £579 million. That represents about 21 per cent. of investment

while Scotland accounts for only 10 per cent. of the Corporation's steel-making capacity. Far from the BSC letting down the Scottish people, they have done very well indeed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being asked.

Mr. Hodgson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the BSC is to achieve staffing levels in line with those of its major competitors it will have to shed 40,000 to 60,000 jobs? Will he therefore agree a programme with the Chairman of the BSC to improve productivity in order to reduce the appalling level of losses, which, together with the capital expenditure programme, account for 20 per cent. of the public sector borrowing requirement of the nation as a whole?

Mr. Varley: I am discussing all these matters with the Corporation and the TUC's steel industry consultative committee. I shall be meeting them again tomorrow.

Mr. Marshall: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what deadline he has set in trying to reach these crucial decisions with the Chairman of the BSC and the TUC committee? Is he aware that if he lets matters drift, on the Port Talbot and Shotton example, for more than a year, he will be doing a disservice to those who work in the industry and to the nation? Is he aware that if he thinks he can get past this issue in the spring and get up to the next General Election he is mistaken?

Mr. Varley: These questions are being discussed urgently with the BSC. I do not want to go further at the moment.

Mr. Lamont: I appreciate the difficulties of the world steel recession, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us of any other national steel industry which has lost its domestic market share as quickly as has the BSC?

Mr. Varley: We have to ensure that we have a substantial, profitable and expanding British steel industry. It is unthinkable to do as some people, particularly some Conservative Members, suggest and to opt out of this pre-eminently manufacturing industry.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the reports that British Steel is stopping all investment plans? Does he agree that it is vital to modernise this industry and that nowhere is that more important than in Scunthorpe, where we need to invest in blast furnace capacity to make iron?

Mr. Varley: There is no question of stopping British Steel's investment programme. The matter has to be dealt with urgently. There are serious problems, but investment will take place next year.

Mr. Hooley: To halt or defer the major investment programme of British Steel would have serious repercussions on other industries such as the plant makers. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there is no question of cutting back this investment programme?

Mr. Varley: Investment in the BSC at the moment is the highest of any steel industry in Europe. Its purpose is to ensure that we have modern and efficient capacity. That is one of the problems. We face the problems of low-cost plants and the difficulties of high-cost plants, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar. I can give my hon. Friend this assurance: investment will take place in the British Steel Corporation next year. The level has to be decided.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Scottish industry rationalised itself long before even the Benson Committee Report and that the industry, whether nationalised or not, ought to remain on a Scottish basis?

Mr. Varley: No, I do not agree. The BSC's problems have to be looked at in terms of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Donald Stewart: No.

Mr. Varley: That may be the right hon. Gentleman's view. It is not the view of Scottish steelworkers or those who represent them. Major investments have taken place in Scotland. There are the Hunterston ore terminal at £91 million, the direct reduction plant, Ravenscraig stage 3, and tube development. These are all taking place in Scotland. If the right hon. Gentleman examines the figures, he will not come to the conclusions he expressed just now.

Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that neither of the two hon. Members from the SNP who have questioned him on this matter represents steel workers? Those of us who represent Scottish steelworkers accept that the Government are facing a very difficult situation, and we rely on the Government both to maintain the investment programme and to provide alternative jobs where these can no longer be provided in the steel industry.

Mr. Varley: I thank my hon. Friend for putting the subject of Scotland into proper perspective. We shall take account of all that he has said in the discussions we are having with the Corporation and the TUC steel committee.

Mr. Biffen: Does the Secretary of State share the view of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade that it would be inappropriate to raise the price of European steel, as is proposed by Commissioner Davignon, in view of the price weakness of the market?

Mr. Varley: That does not arise out of this Question, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no influence over the prices charged by the BSC. That power was given away when we entered the Common Market.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the Secretary of State answer the question put from this Box by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and say whether any other national steel industry has lost as great a share of its domestic market as has the BSC? Secondly, does he agree that, however much money the taxpayer finds to save jobs in BSC, jobs will almost certainly be lost from employment elsewhere in the country as a result of the extra taxes raised for that purpose? Thirdly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that nationalisation of the steel industry has made matters far worse than they otherwise would have been?

Mr. Varley: I cannot take up all the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman since I should incur your wrath if I did so, Mr. Speaker. On the question of the market share, I do not know the precise market shares held by steel industries in other countries. However, BSC has done extremely well in exports over the past few years. It is still a net


exporter. We have to make sure that the BSC becomes profitable and that we secure the jobs of the majority of the people who work in the industry.

National Enterprise Board

Mr. Stan Crowther: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in the light of his decision to set up regional agencies of the National Enterprise Board in the Northern and North Western Regions, he will consider making similar provision in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): My right hon. Friend does not envisage similar boards being set up by the NEB in other regions.

Mr. Crowther: Is my hon. Friend aware that about 130,000 people are out of work in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region and that that is rather more than the number in the Northern Region? Does he accept that a great deal of this is structural unemployment, which has little to do with the present recession? Is he further aware that my constituency is in the process of losing 500 jobs through factory closures? In the light of this severe and continuing problem, will he reconsider whether to give us the benefits being offered to other regions?

Mr. Huckfield: I recognise that my hon. Friend is making a very strong case, but my right hon. Friend and the NEB are right to concentrate assistance on the areas with the highest percentage of unemployment. The figure for the North-West is 7·7 per cent., for the North 8·9 per cent. and for Yorkshire and Humberside 6 per cent.

Mr. Grylls: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that it is extraordinary to set up extra boards under the NEB when after two years the Government have not yet decided either the financial duties of the NEB or its capital structure?

Mr. Huckfield: That is a somewhat different question. The NEB is right to concentrate its effort where it is most needed.

Mr. Hoyle: I accept what has been done in setting up a board for the North-West. However, will my hon. Friend make sure that he has discussions with the NEB to ensure that it includes a represent-

ative from North-East Lancashire? Is he aware that so often it has been the forgotten area, even within the North-West?

Mr. Huckfield: My right hon. Friend and the NEB would be in some difficulty if they were to specify that each area had to have its representative on the board, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Minister give an assurance that the two new agencies will involve no increase in the resources available to the NEB but that they will merely assist the NEB to take decisions which it could take in any event? Will he therefore tell the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) that the new agencies are no protection against the devolved Assemblies in Scotland getting more than their fair share of resources?

Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Member has introduced fresh considerations into this matter. The new boards will enable the NEB to give more weight and authority where they are needed.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps best to ensure that we make a real success of the extension of the powers of the NEB in these cases before we go on to consider wider representations? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong support for what has been done?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's helpful remarks. We shall take account of what he has said.

Clothing Scheme

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many applications have been submitted for support under the clothing scheme; how many have been approved; and what is the total of assistance involved.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): By mid-November 482 applications for assistance under the clothing scheme had been received. Of these 287 had been approved for assistance, totalling £3·9 million.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend make greater efforts to make this scheme known to the clothing sector, particularly the smaller firms? Will he tell them that it is possible for them to


create a package of schemes over a period of years to meet the minimum investment requirement of this scheme?

Mr. Williams: I think that my hon. Friend will see from my original answer that we have received a substantial number of applications, although they have been on a relatively small scale. We have made about 5,000 contracts by correspondence with firms. The EDC and the trade associations have publicised the scheme, and I welcome the extra publicity that my hon. Friend wishes to give it. He is correct in saying that we are willing to look at rolling programmes of investment over perhaps two or three years rather than perhaps the original project.

Hitachi Television Plant

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the proposal of the Hitachi company to establish a new factory in the North-East.

Mr. Alan Williams: No decision will be taken until consultations have been completed.

Mr. Willey: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, whatever the decision, what is important is to take a decision? At present, conditions are favourable for foreign investment in this country, and that has been prejudiced by the delay in coming to a decision.

Mr. Williams: I think that my right hon. Friend will know from the discussions that he and his colleagues from the Northern Region have had with me that we have to balance a whole series of conflicting interests. After a meeting with Hitachi in September, the company suggested that it would welcome a little more time so that it could present its view of its intentions to those who in its opinion had misunderstood its intentions. As yet, the company's representatives have not come back to us from the consultations.

Mr. Hordern: Is it not the Government's aim to encourage investment and employment in the North-East? Is not that exactly what Hitachi is proposing to do? What is wrong with that?

Mr. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on a simple view of the situation. The diffi-

culty is that in the discussions that we have had it has been suggested by the unions and the management that the net balance could be adverse. Therefore, I have been having considerable discussions with the sector working parties, with the unions and with the employers. Mr. Akerman of Mullards has seen me in the past fortnight. Sir Richard Cave saw me last week before he went off to Japan. The discussions are highly intricate, and I am trying to evaluate the precise balance of advantage.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Has Hitachi indicated in the discussions whether it will set up its operations elsewhere in the Common Market and export to us from there if it cannot get into this country?

Mr. Williams: That is one of the serious implications that has to be considered. The company has never put that point to us categorically, but it is undeniable that its intention is to set up a base from which it can operate within the European Community. The balance that we have to try to establish is whether the protection for British industry with Hitachi set up in Britain under conditions that have been agreed with the British Government is greater than if the company goes into another member country where there may be no conditions and from which base it can still attack the British market.

Mr. Alan Clark: Whatever benefits the North-East may face, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the immediate effect of establishing a factory in that area would be to put 400 people in Plymouth out of work? To shunt pockets of unemployment around the country is a dubious practice at the best of times, but least of all should it be done when the result is to further Japanese economic penetration of the industry.

Mr. Williams: I do not accept that that is a necessary conclusion. In any case, the circumstances in Plymouth are unrelated to the problems. Hitachi would not be in operation here for another two years and would not achieve full production until five years after that. At the end of that period the impact on the British market would be an increase of 20,000 sets, because of import substitutions and exports.

Clwyd

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether, in view of the level of unemployment in the county of Clwyd, which is now the highest in Wales and the third highest in the United Kingdom, and in view of the fact that within the county the highest levels of unemployment are in those areas which receive least Government support, he will now confer full development areas status on the whole county.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): A large part of the intermediate area within Clwyd was designated as a development area for the first time last April. This designation must have time to take effect.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will give no comfort to the Rhyl area of my constituency, where one in five is out of a job and where there are no jobs for women?

Mr. Cryer: The Government are anxious about unemployment levels wherever they may be. In Rhyl the Welsh Development Agency has provided four advance factories and investment in Wettern Electric Ltd., which should create 50 jobs. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should clarify his position within his party. The view of the Opposition Front Bench is that the Welsh Development Agency should have removed from it the right to invest in profitable companies. The hon. Gentleman should clarify his position. He cannot ask for the agency to do more while his Front Bench wants to deny it those very powers.

Sir A. Meyer: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Manufacturing Investment

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what are the latest figures for manufacturing investment compared with last year.

Mr. Alan Williams: Investment by manufacturing industry in the first three quarters of this year is provisionally estimated at £1,305 million, at 1970

prices, seasonally adjusted, a rise of 6 per cent. over the same period last year.

Mr. Rooker: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate how many jobs will be lost in manufacturing industry as a result of that investment on the assumption that we have a continuing stagnating level of overall output in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Williams: I suspect far fewer than if the investment did not take place.

Mr. Adley: Does the light hon. Gentleman accept that a job is a job and that a new job created in the service industry is as important for the person who gets it as a job created in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Williams: Of course it is, but the whole problem of our economy has been that the manufacturing base has slipped in terms of our gross national product. The aim of the industrial strategy is to try to rebuild the manufacturing base. That does not mean that we want to damage the service sector.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many firms have failed to accept social responsibility for the investment that they have undertaken? Has my right hon. Friend's Department a policy of social responsibility in industry for firms undertaking new investment?

Mr. Williams: When the Government undertake financial support for new investment we, as a prime objective, look for continuing viability, and, therefore, continuing employment within the firm, and higher productivity. On occasions this may mean, as my hon. Friend has suggested, that some jobs will be lost as a result of investment. However, it is the rôle of the wider policies of governmental support—mainly those within the Department of Employment—to give help to those who are made redundant.

Private Sector Investment

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he intends to take to increase investment in industry in the private sector.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Government intend to continue present policies to improve the economic climate and will


continue to provide generous direct incentives to private investment.

Mr. Adley: In view of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), does the Minister really want entrepreneurs to flourish? What are the Government doing to advise entrepreneurs that the recent statement by the National Executive of the Labour Party is not Government policy?

Mr. Williams: The fact that we want to see entrepreneurs flourish is demonstrated by the success of our investment schemes, under which £1,100 million new investment has been generated. The Opposition constantly vote against any increase in funds under Section 8.

Mr. George Rodgers: In view of the reluctance of private enterprise to take advantage of the incentives provided by the Labour Government, will my right hon. Friend consider taking over advance factories?

Mr. Williams: Advance factories still need projects to get them going. The Government will consider viable projects from any source.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In view of the reply that he gave to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), does the Minister agree that it is no good offering direct assistance to industry when the climate is not right for investment because, as he explained, he has failed to persuade the clothing industry to take up the Industry Act money on offer? Will he explain to his hon. Friends that the level of investment will improve only when he can ensure that the likely rate of return matches the risks involved?

Mr. Williams: A total of £1 billion of investment has been generated as a result of our policies. In the period prior to the recession, the Conservative Administration did not manage in real terms to get manufacturing investment back to the level that it was when the Conservatives took office.

British Leyland

Mr. Richard Page: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next will meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will next meet the Chairman of British Leyland.

Mr. Varley: I am due to see the Chairman of British Leyland later today.

Mr. Page: I acknowledge my own interest. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the new chairman is fully aware of the vital necessity of having a planned range of models throughout the Leyland range, and, in particular, to work on progress towards a new fleet and a medium-size family saloon? To that end, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, if extra finance is needed, adequate parliamentary time and discussion will be made available?

Mr. Varley: As the hon. Gentleman concedes, the model range is a matter for British Leyland. I know that the new Chairman of British Leyland is fully aware of that factor. As for parliamentary debate and time, I shall give consideration to that plea.

Mr. Durant: I press the right hon. Gentleman further about the middle-range car. Is he aware that the distributors are very anxious to have a middle-range car? They are not convinced of the merits of the new Mini.

Mr. Varley: That is a matter for the British Leyland board. I shall draw its attention to the hon. Gentleman's interest.

Mr. Litterick: Will my right hon. Friend urge on the new Chairman of British Leyland the need to integrate his company's expansion plans with the investment and production plans of the British machine-tool industry? To that end, will he tell the House when he expects to have planning agreements with both British Leyland and the major British machine-tool manufacturers?

Mr. Varley: The need to relate British Leyland's plans to those of the British machine-tool industry is a matter that is already being considered by British Leyland. As for planning arrangements with British Leyland, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are participation arrangements. They were agreed during the time of the Ryder Report. Some of them have been successful, but, unfortunately, some of the trade unions have not


been taking part in the discussions. I hope that they will do so.

Mr. Hal Miller: Would the Secretary of State explain to the Chairman of British Leyand that the House voted funds for British Leyland on the basis of the Ryder plan and that if that is now changed or overtaken by events it will be necessary to come back to the House for approval of funding?

Mr. Varley: The National Enterprise Board will receive British Leyland's corporate plan at around the turn of the year. It will be for the Government to decide how we make our views known to the House. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

Sir K. Joseph: In the light of the difficulties with British Leyland, steel, ships and aeroplanes, does the Secretary of State still believe in Clause 4?

Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman should do a check list of the 1974 Labour Party manifesto. He would see that the only aspect of those manifestos which has not been fulfilled is that which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). We have not made as much progress as we should have done on planning agreements. The Labour Party stands for the expansion of public ownership, and we are doing that.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what further plans he has to hold discussions on future prospects for British Leyland with the group's management and with the National Enterprise Board.

Mr. Les Huckfield: British Leyland is preparing a revised corporate plan on the basis of which the National Enterprise Board will report to my right hon. Friend on the company's future strategy. Discussions will be held as necessary.

Mr. Dykes: I missed the first part of the answer but I thank the Minister for it. As the Government are inevitably involved, because of Government money, and as the Secretary of State said five weeks ago that time was running out for British Leyland, will the Minister add to his answer and say what is happening about future investment perspectives and the intention to put more

money into the industry and the company?

Mr. Huckfield: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that with a new chairman and chief executive the corporate plan is being revised. When that is presented to the NEB and to my right hon. Friend, we can comment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my hon. Friend give details of how many people now employed in the industry and in components industries would be unemployed if British Leyland had failed? Will the Government take action to ensure that we have a "Buy British" campaign for the products of British Leyland?

Mr. Huckfield: I thank my hon. Friend for his very helpful attitude, which is certainly more helpful than that of the Opposition to British Leyland these days. I think that the original estimate, at the time when British Leyland was assisted with Government finance, in April 1975, was that the workers directly employed and the indirect dependants accounted for about 1 million jobs at stake. As for buying British, I take note of what my hon. Friend says. This is something that we continue to examine.

Mr. Norman Lamont: As the management of British Leyland has invested so much time in negotiating a common bargaining date and a new pay structure, which has now been vetoed by the Trades Union Congress, will the Government make it quite clear that they will back the management of British Leyland if that is what it wants?

Mr. Huckfield: This is a matter still under consideration by my right hon. Friend and by the Government. Obviously, what the TUC has said will be taken into account.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that British Leyland now has a feasible programme for returning to commercial viability.

Mr. Varley: I am awaiting the report which the National Enterprise Board will make to me when it has received and considered British Leyland's revised corporate plan.

Mr. Arnold: What specific criteria will the Government adopt this time in assessing whether British Leyland's production targets are sufficiently precise?

Mr. Varley: It depends on the plan that we shall receive and the amount of resources that will be required. It is not only a matter of resources from public funds but what we hope British Leyland will be able to generate from profits. It is clear—and the House now realises it—that the market share position of British Leyland is extremely serious. The Ryder plan for British Leyland envisaged a market share of 33 per cent. and the present figure is much lower than that. But I have confidence that the newly-established British Leyland board will tackle this as quickly as possible.

Mr. Litterick: Would the Secretary of State now like to have a second try at answering the question as to when he expects to conclude a planning agreement with British Leyland, this time without confusing us with the abortive participation agreement between management and workers at British Leyland?

Mr. Varley: I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not understand what I was saying last time round. I am sure that he, like most of us on this Bench, regrets very much that the participation scheme is not being carried through, but I know of no constraints and no difficulties to prevent British Leyland and the work force from concluding a planning agreement if they want to do so.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Secretary of State accept that the commercial viability of the remainder of the British car industry rests on its being organised on a European basis? Has he thought about such an arrangement for British Leyland also?

Mr. Varley: The other British motor car manufacturers have integrated some of their operations within Europe. A protocol has been signed between British Leyland and Renault on technical assistance. I do not know whether it will be possible to build on that, but it is something that British Leyland is looking at.

Mr. George Rodgers: Will my right hon. Friend agree that the bus and truck section of British Leyland continues to

operate efficiently and effectively? What is the prospect of funds being made available for the new foundry and engineering centre that is so necessary for the welfare of British Leyland?

Mr. Varley: I know that the bus and truck section operates effectively. I have no details about the foundry and the other matters, but perhaps I may write to my hon. Friend about them.

Civil Airframe Industry

Mrs. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the civil airframe industry.

Mr. Kaufman: It is for the British Aerospace Corporation to formulate plans for the industry and to put proposals to the Government. I know that the Corporation is actively examining all the possible civil aircraft options.

Mrs. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the already demoralised civil aircraft industry in this country was appalled by the speech of Ross Stainton, the deputy-chairman of British Airways, about the Trident replacement, which should be supplied by this country and by our industry? Will my hon. Friend ensure that there is not only an immediate go-ahead for the HS 146 but that British Airways is told firmly that it must fly The flag as well?

Mr. Kaufman: The question of the aircraft programme of British Airways is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The Government are anxious that wherever possible British airlines should buy British.

Mr. Tebbit: Why does the Minister think that the head of the nationalised British Airways made it plain that he has to go to the capitalist American industry rather than the nationalised British manufacturing industry to buy the aeroplanes that he needs? Does the Minister think that he might have spent his time better if, instead of going in for what he called the advance of Socialism by nationalisation, he had got on with helping the industry, with Europe or America, to produce an aircraft that the industry needs?

Mr. Kaufman: One of the reasons why Mr. Stainton might have thought


it necessary to make those remarks was that during the period 1970–74 the private British aircraft industry introduced no new products. The Government have retained the option on the HS146 and the British Aerospace Corporation will be making recommendations at about the end of the year. We have ensured that the production of the BAC 111 goes ahead, whereas it would have been stopped if private industry had had its way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with representatives from Chadderton and Woodford about the 748 and the Coaster-guarder?

Mr. Kaufman: I have had discussions with representatives in the Manchester area. I am in frequent contact with workers' representatives in the industry.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that it would be preferable if British Airways were to re-equip with British aircraft, but does the Minister agree that his own Government's programme foreshadowed the introduction of legislation on noise levels that cannot be reached by any aircraft at present in production?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should discuss noise levels with his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who is always saying in the House that noise levels are too high. We have encouraged production of British aircraft for the world market. The fact that Concorde during its visit to New York earlier this month passed the noise test shows that we can succeed in these matters.

Mr. Terry Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents and the shop stewards in the industry have been in touch with his Department about this matter? Does he agree that there is a need to concentrate on subsonic aircraft? I hope that we shall not have to wait too long before the Secretary of State makes his announcement, because of the pressure on the work force and future employment in the industry. The situation must be rectified quickly.

Mr. Kaufman: I met representatives from Filton and Patchway a week ago and I gave them the Government's view that we must be clear about the possible options on subsonics, because that is the

quickest way of getting the work into our industry.

Advance Factory (Dearne Valley)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now consider the building of a new advance factory within the Dearne Valley constituency.

Mr. Cryer: I have no plans to do so at the present time. But we are building factories at Goldthorpe and Barnsley which will be accessible to my hon. Friend's constituents.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend realise that the unemployment rate in Mexborough is 11 per cent. or more? Does he realise that the people of Mexborough and the surrounding areas consider that his Department is not helping as much as it should? Is he aware that the advance factory in Mexborough remained empty for about five years and that it now employs only about 20 people, because it is used mainly for the storage of equipment? Will the Minister therefore authorise the building of a new advance factory in Mexborough and another elsewhere in my constituency?

Mr. Cryer: I appreciate the difficulties in my hon. Friend's area. I assure my hon. Friend that both the factories that we are building in Goldthorpe and Barnsley will produce up to 300 jobs. My Department is offering encouragement and inducements to private enterprise companies to provide manufacturing jobs where they are needed in the form of 100 per cent. tax concessions for plant and machinery. That type of inducement will produce jobs.

Mr. Stan Crowther: In order to prevent advance factories from standing empty as a monument to the reluctance of private enterprise to be adventurous, will my hon. Friend give thought to the involvement of the NEB in an entrepreneurial rôle by allowing it to set up its own subsidiary manufacturing companies?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful for this suggestion by my hon. Friend, but the National Enterprise Board can do this already if it so chooses. I shall certainly draw to the attention of the NEB my hon. Friend's very helpful and constructive remarks.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will lay on the Table of the House all the papers that have passed between himself and the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation over the last 12 months.

Mr. Varley: No.

Mr. Renton: Is there not a growing feeling, aggravated by the Secretary of State's evasive answers earlier this afternoon, that, while these very important discussions about the BSC's future are going on, there is a conspiracy of silence in regard to telling this House anything about those discussions? We represent the taxpayers who will have to pay bills amounting to billions of pounds. In how many weeks' time will the Secretary of State make a full statement to this House?

Mr. Varley: The matter is being dealt with urgently. I have had several discussions and my hon. Friend the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)—has had discussions with the British Steel Corporation. As I have already indicated, I shall be seeing the TUC steel committee tomorrow. We are making as much progress as we can. I am not flippant in any way and do not underestimate the needs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend point out quietly to the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation that it would be better for the image of public corporations if chairmen were more forthcoming to Select Committees of the House, which have a duty to probe into these matters and which expect co-operation from persons of that status?

Mr. Varley: I am not aware that the chairmen of nationalised industries do not co-operate with Select Committees. I know that when I have had the honour to appear before Select Committees I have tried to be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Secretary of State accept that we shall look forward to what he has to say on Thursday on these matters, but also take into account that he is being rather coy about this? Will he not assure us that he will try to make a statement before Christmas on what he intends to do, if necessary

postponing some of the longer-term decisions for a second and later statement? Some of us want to be helpful, but he is not helping us.

Mr. Varley: I will consider that.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any legislative plans to alter the structure of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Kaufman: No, Sir.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister of State aware that while his Department answers Questions for 50 minutes the Corporation will have lost another £50,000? Does he accept that the Beswick reprieves have acted as a cancer on profitable parts of the industry, such as Scunthorpe? Will he give the House a categorical assurance that no funds at present designated for investment will be taken away merely to pay wages in the industry?

Mr. Kaufman: None of that arises out of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Perhaps he will make a calculation of how many tens of thousands of dollars Bethlehem Steel lost while he was putting his supplementary question.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that while the steel industry is in trouble he will at all times consult the trade union leaders in the industry so that any solution is acceptable to them?

Mr. Kaufman: Yes, of course. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, we shall be meeting the TUC steel committee tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the first planning agreement was made with the Corporation and how many changes there have been since then?

Mr. Kaufman: Not without notice.

Concorde

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will next have discussions with French Ministers about the Concorde programme.

Mr. Kaufman: I expect to discuss the Concorde project with the French


Minister of Transport in due course, but no date has yet been fixed.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he appreciate that we must keep closely in touch with the French? Now that we have made a breakthrough on sales of Concorde, is the industry equipped to make sure that when we get further orders we can go into production?

Mr. Kaufman: I agree with my hon. Friend. I managed to have a brief word with M. Cavaillé when I was in New York for the Concorde inaugural. We shall keep in touch on these matters, and the conditions on which further Concordes could be built have been made clear.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: What discussions has the Minister had with the Chairman of British Aerospace about making some of the unsold Concordes available on lease?

Mr. Kaufman: Leasing arrangements have been under very close consideration indeed. The hon. Gentleman will know that a leasing arrangement has already gone forward with regard to Singapore Airlines, and we are pursuing other possibilities extremely vigorously.

Mr. Tebbit: Is a profit on the production of further Concordes one of the necessary requirements before further production is authorised?

Mr. Kaufman: No further loss to the taxpayer—something that the hon. Gentleman, with his party's financial stringency, would no doubt endorse.

Ferrous Foundry Scheme

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the total amount of money given out under the ferrous foundry scheme.

Mr. Alan Williams: Offers so far made under the ferrous foundry industry scheme total £58 million, and payments £7million. This assistance is related to a total foundry investment of £264 million.

Mr. Canavan: Is there likely to be any money left unspent from this scheme? What additional steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that extra investment goes into the foundry industry in

order to improve the employment prospects of the workers in the foundry industry, including places such as Bonny-bridge and Denny in my constituency?

Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that the results at Denny are likely to be satisfactory. I think it improbable that there will be funds left over. He will appreciate that the scheme was originally for £25 million. It was increased to £40 million and now stands at £80 million. A substantial part of that has been taken up. Of the 296 foundries that have so far had offers of support, 192 employ fewer than 200 and 62 employ fewer than 50.

Mr. Hodgson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider altering the rules of the scheme so as to allow for grant aid the fees for professional assistance in the preparation of the complex submissions required by his Department? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that small foundries find the burden of employing outside accountants considerable?

Mr. Williams: If that is so, obviously I regret it. The departmental regional offices will do all that they can to assist. Putting the figures I have just given in a different context, what is encouraging is that two-thirds of the approvals given have been given to firms that are small on the basis of the Bolton criteria.

Sir K. Joseph: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition do not accept that the industry schemes including this one, have caused the investments—to the tune, I believe the Minister said, of about £1 billion—of which the Government boast? Is he aware, further, that we believe that most of the projects in the foundry scheme and all the other industry schemes would have gone ahead anyway without the Government's schemes?

Mr. Williams: It is fascinating to a great many right hon. and hon. Members to discover that in the past 45 minutes the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has indicated that he does not approve of support for the steel industry, that he does not approve of support for the car industry and that, obviously, he would not support the various investment schemes put forward by the Government and industry. This is the Conservatives' apology for an industry policy.

Hot Water Meters

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his policy regarding the EEC proposal to harmonise hot water meters.

Mr. Cryer: The United Kingdom market for hot water meters is very small at present and there is no United Kingdom manufacture. The relevant sector of United Kingdom industry recognises a possible longer-term export potential for such meters, however, and is in principle in favour of the harmonisation proposals in the current EEC draft directive. United Kingdom Government policy reflects industry's attitude, subject to satisfactory safety and energy conservation requirements in particular. Consultations with potential manufacturing and other interests are in progress.

Mr. Marten: Does the hon. Gentleman believe what he has just said?

Mr. Cryer: The draft is not binding on this country. For once it is subject to legislation here in Parliament. The hon. Gentleman, who, I know, takes a keen and devout interest in this matter, along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, will have an opportunity therefore to participate in the legislative procedure, which is not completely true for every EEC matter.

Mr. Lee: Can my hon. Friend say when the legislation may be forthcoming?

Mr. Cryer: Not at present, because discussions on the directive are still under way. But if it is introduced it will be brought before Parliament. That is the important principle with which the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) should be concerned.

Civil Aircraft Project

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if the British Aerospace Corporation has yet told him of any proposal to proceed with a new civil aircraft project or requested Government support for such a project.

Mr. Kaufman: British Aerospace is actively examining all the possible civil aircraft options.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether that answer means "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Kaufman: It means what it says.

Mr. Rost: How can British Airways buy British when the Minister has taken no decisions over the past three years to help the industry get any projects launched and now presides over the rundown of the nationalised aerospace industry?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically inaccurate. The decision that I announced only last year, following that made by my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Energy, has made it possible for the HS146 project to be launched following a positive recommendation from British Aerospace, should that be forthcoming and acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Hoyle: Is not it damaging when British Airways announces that it will buy American? This does not help formulate any policy at all. Will my hon. Friend recommend to the Secretary of State for Trade that Ross Stainton be sacked for his remarks?

Mr. Kaufman: I do not think that a random dismissal is a necessary solution to this problem. We are extremely anxious that British Airways and all other airlines, including the privately owned airline by which I flew to Teesside only a few days ago on an American plane, should buy British. I would point out that Mr. Ross Stainton made his statement in New York after having flown there in the greatest plane ever produced by any aircraft industry in the world.

Mr. Adley: Could it be that Mr. Stainton really does not know that discussions are taking place between his company and British Aerospace? Is it not more likely that this is a ploy and that he is hoping to extract a subsidy from the Government in return for an instruction to buy British even though British Airways may do so anyway?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman ought to address that question to Mr. Stainton.

Mr. Adley: I have.

Mr. Kaufman: I myself have had frequent amicable conversations with Mr. Stainton. When Mr. Stainton reports back that he intends to buy British, I am sure that our conversations will be even more amicable.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister of State indicate when the British aerospace industry is to make a favourable decision relating to the HS 146 and when this very fine aircraft, whose production could employ many people within the aerospace industry, is likely to start production?

Mr. Kaufman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pays tribute to the Government's decision to keep the HS 146 project alive when private enterprise would have killed it off because we were not ready to fund it 100 per cent. British Aerospace is hoping to bring forward a recommendation around the end of the year and we shall consider that recommendation as soon as it is presented to us.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (COURT VISITS)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Attorney-General how many official court visits he has made during the current Session of Parliament.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): None. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility for the administration of the courts in England and Wales.

Mr. Canavan: During my right hon. and learned Friend's court visits previously, has he formed any impression about the need for some reform of the law on criminal libel? Is it not absolutely disgraceful that a crook like Roger Gleaves, whose gang was responsible for the exploitation of young people and for the murder of one of my constituents, Billy McPhee, should be allowed out of prison after two years and should manage to persuade a magistrate to imprison three journalists and to lay criminal libel charges against two others whose only crime was that they were responsible for exposing the Gleaves racket in the first place?

The Attorney-General: Taking the second part of my hon. Friend's supple-

mentary question, it appears that the matter is sub judice, so he will not expect me to comment on it. On the more general question, the reform of the libel law is a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. On this aspect of it there are conflicting recommendations from the Faulks Committee on defamation and the Royal Commission on the Press, and they are now being considered.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the worrying and increasing delays now being experienced in South-East England before cases are brought on for trial? Will he confirm that this is so because not enough courts are available? Is he satisfied with the liaison that currently exists between his Department, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment with regard to the provision of more courts?

The Attorney-General: My right hon. and noble Friend has this matter very much in mind. It is largely a question of the provision of court accommodation, quite apart from the provision of judicial officers. I know that my right hon. and noble Friend keeps it constantly under review.

Mr. Greville Janner: When my right hon. and learned Friend is considering the work of the courts, will he consider transferring from the courts to industrial tribunals all claims and disputes about contracts of employment, as provided for in the Employment Protection Act? Is not it ridiculous that, while unfair dismissal cases, including constructive dismissal, which the Court of Appeal has said must now be decided on contractual bases, are dealt with in industrial tribunals, wrongful dismissal cases by the same people must still go to the courts?

The Attorney-General: I shall see my right hon. and noble Friend is informed of that point of view.

SPANISH GOLD REAL ESTATE, LIMITED

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a view to prosecution for fraud, the activities and advertising in the United Kingdom of Spanish Gold Real Estate, Limited, in


connection with its advertisements of retirement homes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): Spanish Gold Real Estates is the trading name of Swadeway Limited. I have no evidence of the commission by that company of criminal offences, but I shall consider any information which is submitted to me.

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that advertisements of retirement homes in Spain, such as those appearing in Choice magazine, should be looked into? Will he consider the evidence that I shall send him? Two of my constituents have lost their life savings in worthless property which they have got through advertisements such as those in Choice magazine.

Mr. Davidson: I shall consider any evidence that my hon. Friend sends me and, if it is clear that it should go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it will be sent to him.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Attorney-General whether he will seek as early as possible to clarify the law relating to contempt of court by the media when a retrial of a criminal case has been ordered.

The Attorney-General: When the retrial of a criminal case has been ordered, the ordinary rules of contempt of court apply so that prejudicial comment may amount to a contempt. The Phillimore Committee recommended no change on this point.

Mr. Fraser: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we have reached an absurd situation. There was the recent case involving the Newcastle Journal, and again only recently there was another case involving my own newspaper in Stafford, the Stafford Newsletter, when the unfortunate editor was dragged before a court and told that he was in contempt. I have sent the papers to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Quite clearly, as Lord Justice Lawton recommended in 1969, the law should be changed. As it stands, the law is erratic and totally capricious. I hope that there will be a change as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Too long.

The Attorney-General: The matter involving the Newcastle Journal is now sub judice. I have applied for the Divisional Court to consider the matter. That is the proper way of doing it. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is uncertainty about this aspect of the law. That is the very reason why I have asked for that matter to go before the Divisional Court for clarification.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to thank the House for its co-operation at Question Time. We have covered a much larger field.

SHERIFF (REMOVAL FROM OFFICE) ORDER

Mr. Speaker: I undertook on Thursday last to advise the House on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) regarding the scope of debate on the Prayer for the annulment of the Sheriff (Removal from Office) Order which is due to be debated on Monday 5th December.
The hon. Member asked, in effect, whether it would be in order to discuss in that debate the question of whether the sheriff concerned should have the leave of the House to appear at the Bar of the House.
I must first remind the House that the question of whether an opportunity should be given for the House to debate the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member, which is designed to give leave to the sheriff to be present at the Bar of the House when the Prayer is debated, is not a matter for me. I am not concerned in the arrangement of business.
As for the scope of debate on the Prayer itself, I have considered this carefully and it is clear to me that it would be in order to argue, as a reason for supporting the Prayer, that this House should not uphold the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland in dismissing the sheriff unless or until he was given an opportunity of appearing before this House and defending himself.

Later—

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Lord President has been making it difficult for the House to debate the Sheriff


Thomson affair, and in view of the fact that Lord Kilbrandon over the weekend appeared to make a speech which may or may not commit the same offence as that of which Sheriff Thomson was convicted, will you use your good offices to see that the Lord President himself can be questioned about his conduct in this whole matter?

Mr. Speaker: That would get me into hot water.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having had a chance to inform you about this beforehand. I understand from a notice that has gone to all hon. Members over the weekend that certain major restrictions will be placed upon Members showing constituents around the Palace of Westminster. I believe that this raises very important issues for Members in all parts of the House who wish to show their constituents around the Palace.
The two things that concern me most are, first, the restriction on showing people the Robing Room and, second, the restriction upon numbers. The vast majority of parties that I show around—I am sure this goes for other Members—are from schools. Most of the parties are more than 16 in number, and although there is to be some temporary relaxation to allow those already booked to look around, it appears that after a date in the fairly near future no parties of 16 and more will be allowed around the Palace. I do not quite know how one tackles this, but I thought I might raise it as a point of order and possibly get advice from you.

Mr. Speaker: May I tell the House that these restrictions have been imposed during the present emergency conditions. It is a commonsense restriction. We are asking everyone else in the country to take steps to protect their places against fire and that is why I approved of the recommendation from the Services Committee.

Mr. Greville Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise two points. I sought an assur-

ance that this restriction would be removed at the end of the firemen's strike and I failed to obtain that assurance. Is your statement to the House to the effect that when the firemen's strike ends, so will these restrictions?
The second point is that according to the notice which has been sent around, when there are more than 16 people—and we cannot get a guide for any number above 16—they can obtain a pamphlet and go around on their own, which seems to make it less rather than more secure for the House.

Mr. Marten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, of course, the number over 16 can go around on their own, they can do so by following about one foot behind the others, and that amounts to the same thing.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I am concerned these restrictions are to apply during the strike. I hope that the House will co-operate on this matter.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during December. The monthly written forecast for December was deposited on 25th November.
Heads of Government will meet in Brussels on 5th and 6th December. At present seven meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for December. Fishery Ministers will meet on 5th and 6th; Environment Ministers on 12th and 13th; Energy Ministers on 13th; Foreign Ministers on 19th and 20th; Transport Ministers on 20th and 21st December and Social Affairs Ministers on a date yet to be agreed. In addition, there will be a meeting of Community Health Ministers on 13th December.
Fisheries Ministers will continue their discussions on the internal régime of the common fisheries policy.
Environment Ministers are expected to consider various proposals relating to the protection of the environment.
Agriculture Ministers are expected to have a preliminary discussion on the


common agricultural policy price proposals for 1978–79. They are also expected to consider the Commission's report on the use of the European unit of account in the common agricultural policy and proposals for the phasing out of monetary compensatory amounts, as well as proposals for Mediterranean agriculture, producer groups, a sheepmeat réegime, import arrangements for beef, chilling processes for poultry meat, and the eradication of brucellosis in cattle.
Energy Ministers are expected to discuss the energy situation in the Community and in the world; progress on the achievement of Community energy policy objectives for 1985; nuclear questions; support for joint hydrocarbon exploration projects; financial aid to demonstration projects and a directive on heat generators. They are also likely to resume their consideration of refining problems within the Community; financial measures to promote the use of coal for electricity generation; and aid for financing cyclical stocks of coal.
Foreign Ministers will consider certain external fisheries matters; and the continuation of negotiations on a common fund. There will be a further discussion on steel, and probably on regional policy. The Ministers will also discuss the Community's bilateral textile negotiations and the question of the renewal of the Multi-Fibre Arrangements; a mandate for EEC-Spain trade negotiations; EEC-Yugoslavia relations; and, possibly, enlargement. Mediterranean agriculture and EEC-Turkey relations. They will also consider direct elections to the European Assembly and certain staff matters.
Transport Ministers are expected to consider Community quotas for industrial road haulage between member States; summer time; adjustment of national taxation systems for commercial vehicles; Community driving licences; Community investment in transport infrastructure projects; and hijacking and terrorism. They will also follow up the United Kingdom Presidency initiative on the common transport policy with a discussion on the future programme of work on transport subjects.
Social Affairs Ministers will consider Commission proposals on youth employment. They may also formally adopt the texts on the review of the social fund.
A meeting of Health Ministers of member States will take place in Brussels on 13th December. This is not a meeting of the Council as such, and will not take formal decisions, but is a meeting arranged within the framework of the Council to give Health Ministers an opportunity to exchange views on common problems.

Mr. Hurd: May I take up the Minister's reference to sheepmeat? In view of the disturbing Press reports which we have seen, will he give us an assurance that if there is to be an arrangement—I am not quite sure why there need be one—it will be on wholly different lines from that for dairy products? Since Britain, as I understand it, is the biggest consumer, importer and producer of lamb, will the Minister give an assurance that the interests of our consumers and the interests of British and New Zealand farmers will be fully protected?
The Minister reminded us that we are coming up to the next farm review, which will settle up to three-quarters of the Community budget for next year. Will he use his influence—it is not too soon—with the Leader of the House to make sure, in view of the enormous importance of this—his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here—that, whatever the state of the documentation before the Scrutiny Committee, the House has an opportunity for a full-dress debate on the common agricultural policy in good time before the Minister goes to Brussels for the review?
Finally, what is the position about the argument between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament on the size of the regional fund and the social fund following the cuts proposed by the Council of Ministers? As these funds are—perhaps it might be more accurate to say "could be"—of substantial importance to this country, will the Minister make sure that we are kept informed?

Mr. Judd: On the question of sheep-meat, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's intention to seek a Common Market organisation which provides adequate returns for producers, prevents rapid or unnecessary rises in prices for consumers and ensures continued, adequate access for frozen imported supplies from third countries, including New Zealand. On the CAP,


I shall certainly bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point which the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has just made.
On the regional fund, it is the technicalities that are mainly under discussion at the moment. We would favour a larger rather than a smaller regional fund. One of the principles which have been absolutely fundamental to our approach in these discussions is that the control of regional policy should remain firmly and squarely with individual member Governments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call any hon. Member, I would point out that Private Members' motions are set to end at 7 o'clock. I know that hon. Members will bear that in mind. There will be a debate on EEC fisheries later in the day.

Mr. Powell: Will the meeting of Fishery Ministers be considering a further relaxation of the herring fishing ban in favour of small boats on the lines of the relaxation already given to French fishermen?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that what we are most concerned about is the paramount importance of conservation. While prevarication continues within EEC circles or elsewhere on effective policies, no one can over-estimate the danger to future stocks as they dwindle beyond repair. Therefore, in our approach to the herring ban or anything else, conservation will be of paramount importance.

Mr. Jay: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Government's intentions on sheepmeat are what he says, there is no need for a common sheepmeat policy at all? Secondly, will he say at which of these innumerable meetings the British Government will be bringing forward their own promised proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy?

Mr. Judd: I agree with my right hon. Friend on his first point. One of our objectives is to remove unnatural inhibitions to intra-Community trade, and that includes sheepmeat as well. Reform of the common agricultural policy is an ongoing process that we keep constantly

under review. As I have, said, I am bringing to the attention of my right hon. Friend the feeling in the House that there should be proper and full debate before we commit ourselves to any irrevocable decision.

Mr. Thorpe: While the hon. Gentleman is not responsible for all his colleagues who will negotiate, will he at least act as a post office and first try to see that the Foreign Office gets a collective view giving full support to President Sadat's courageous initiative in starting negotiations in Cairo for a Middle East solution?
Will the Transport Ministers make clear that the licences for road haulage are inadequate? Is he aware that a constituent of mine has £200,000 worth of goods for export to France but cannot get the necessary quota to carry them? That system needs radical reorganisation.
Will the hon. Gentleman see that the Agriculture Ministers are prepared to devalue the green pound by anything up to 10 per cent.? It is ridiculous that carcase beef from Ireland can be imported at 13p per pound below cost in this country.
Finally, either at a Heads of Government meeting or at a Foreign Ministers' meeting, will the Government be able to reassure their partners not only that they intend to reach the May-June target date for direct elections but that the party of Churchill, Macmillan, Home and Heath, who have at least proved their Europeanism, has also proved enthusiastic?

Mr. Judd: The right hon. Gentleman first referred to the initiative by President Sadat. I remind him that the Nine, at their meeting last week, went on record with a formal statement but making plain in that statement that they continued their commitment to the concept of Geneva as remaining vital in the whole Middle East crisis.
Secondly, the next Transport Ministers' Council will discuss the Commission's proposal for increases in Community quotas for international road haulage between member States.
The right hon. Gentleman's third point was about the green pound. While we take as seriously as anyone in the Community the interests of the producers, our objective is to see that the interests of producers in the Community are balanced


more effectively with the interests of the consumers. We are therefore working hard to restrain unnecessary price rises, and we are always working to eliminate unnecessary structural surpluses.
Finally, our ability to fulfil the target date for direct elections is in the hands of the House. It is the responsibility of every party in the House to decide whether it is in favour of the target date.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman raise the most important issue of the question of the rat race for credit guarantees, started by the French Government? This is a very important matter, as it is vital to our exports that there should not be this undercutting competition by French dealing, in this fashion.
Will the hon. Gentleman also draw the attention of the French Government to the fact that in future they will not be allowed to dominate the Council of Ministers when particularly stupid statements are made about the Middle East?

Mr. Judd: We are all the time seeking ways to ensure that there is no surreptitious, unfair competition by anyone within the Community and that we are operating as effectively in international trade as anyone else.
On the statement about the Middle East, I make the point, having been present at the meeting, that no single State dominated that discussion. The statement that emerged from those deliberations reflected the common concern to do everything possible to promote stability in the Middle East.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In view of the bureaucratic legislation coming from the EEC and the increasing time taken up by the House in considering it, what action do the Government propose to establish greater parliamentary control over that legislation, as set out in the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall shortly be debating that subject, if we are lucky.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Having, been in several Scottish fishing boats from the West Coast to the Moray Firth, I have again had representations made to me about the feeling of fishermen that the Community system for conservation is

futile in view of its abuse by the French and the Danes in particular, and that the only answer is a 50-mile exclusive limit. Nevertheless, the fishermen are proud of the robust line taken by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and wish him to continue it in future negotiations.

Mr. Judd: The Community is well aware of the anxieties felt, but I take this opportunity to underline again that no one should underestimate the serious and irreparable damage which may be done to stocks unless effective policies are soon reached. In the reaching of those policies, it must be recognised by the Community—this is basically our position—that 60 per cent. of the Community fish stocks come from British waters. For any policy to be acceptable, that fact must be recognised.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that he should seek to keep to a minimum increases in the price of commodities in surplus but that, as far as the British producer is concerned, he should see that there is a change in the green pound to compensate for increased costs?

Mr. Judd: I have made plain that the overriding objective in our approach is to balance the interests of producers and consumers, but in our view—this is the underlying theme of my right hon. Friend's approach—the interests of the consumers have not been adequately represented by the CAP. We are working continually to try to improve their lot.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the seven Members who have been getting up, if we can do it in nine minutes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether, in the discussions of the Agriculture Ministers, the future of the Milk Marketing Board is to be a subject? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance yet again that the structure of the Board will remain and that the excellent work that it does will continue in this country?
Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Secretary of State for Trade will maintain the most robust attitude on the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement and will not budge


an inch to undermine the excellent textile industry that we have in this country?

Mr. Judd: I suspect that in his first point the hon. Gentleman was referring to his underlying anxiety about the references to producer groups. They are mainly in other member States and in this respect probably do not relate to this country. I see no real reason for anxiety about the Milk Marketing Board at this juncture, but I know that hon. Members take this issue seriously, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be very much in the Government's mind. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about trade. The Government are well aware of their responsibility to the British textile industry.

Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to his colleagues in Europe that it is unlikely that the Bill for direct elections will be through this House very quickly because it is unlikely that the Opposition would be so ham-fisted as to support a guillotine on a Bill which they have already described as of great constitutional importance?
The hon. Gentleman referred in his statement to a proposal for Community driving licences. Did he not make clear in Europe that we do not need them, just as we do not need Community passports, that they will be purely cosmetic, giving a lot of jobs to bureaucracy, and that all that is necessary is to recognise the British passport throughout the Community and vice versa?

Mr. Judd: I will bring to the attention of the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench what he has said about direct elections. I note the strength of the hon. Gentleman's views about a Community driving licence. I think that many people in this country would think that there was a good deal of logic in what he said.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman said that at the meeting of Transport Ministers there would be discussion of terrorism and hijacking. Bearing in mind that Home Affairs Ministers have already considered this matter, and that the months go on and incidents increase, will he make a point of suggesting to the Transport Ministers that they arrive at some conclusions and take some action? Will he see that the Secretary of State

for Transport makes a statement to this House about what is actually being done?

Mr. Judd: I know of the hon. Gentleman's continuous interest in this vital subject, which everyone takes seriously. Obviously, if we are to get convincing international arrangements, they have to go wider than the Community. Therefore, the Community, in this context, will act as a catalyst in trying to press the international community as a whole to take the necessary effective action.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the significance on a Community scale of the beef premium scheme as a means of securing fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, may I ask the Minister to say why that subject does not feature on the agenda of a meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers?

Mr. Judd: The short answer is that I do not know. I will ask my right hon. Friend and we can get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the Minister give an assurance that when he or the Foreign Secretary discusses Turkish matters in Brussels they will bear in mind two points? The first is that Turkey is in association with the Community and, therefore, should expect some privileges in terms of textiles as compared with the other exporting countries. Second, can the Minister give a firm assurance that when financial aid is being considered for the island of Cyprus we shall not lose sight of the fact that no money should go to Cyprus unless it is used in the interests of all the people in Cyprus, irrespective of race?

Mr. Judd: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Community takes extremely seriously its economic relationship with Turkey. This is likely to be under review in the forthcoming weeks. On the political level, as we move towards enlargement, the Community takes equally seriously the importance of its political relationship with Turkey. It is determined to see that this does not suffer as enlargement moves forward.
I recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said about Cyprus. The Community is at pains to


ensure that the objective the hon. Gentleman has in mind is fulfilled. I took the opportunity, at the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, to bring home to the Community as forcibly as I could the point that it was no good moralising and posturing about the situation in Cyprus and about our responsibilities towards Cyprus unless we were prepared to put our financial actions where our mouths were and to fulfil our general political obligations to the island.

Mr. Rost: Since the Energy Ministers will be discussing some important initiatives for a conservation incentive programme in Europe, on which our Secretary of State has been dragging his feet, may we have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman before the recess?

Mr. Judd: That is a question for my right hon. Friend. I will bring it to his attention.

Mr. Arnold: Further to what the Minister has said about Turkey, may I ask what specific criteria he will adopt in any discussion with the Turkish Government about Mediterranean agricultural projects in the light of the application from Greece for membership of the Community?

Mr. Judd: What is fundamental in this context is that the Community is currently reviewing its own policy to-wards its existing Mediterranean member countries. Its ultimate policy in other directions will be related to this review. In terms of the enlargement, we have repeatedly emphasised that we want to have no pre-conditions. We want to move ahead towards enlargement looking at each country on its merits.

Mr. Tapsell: Is the Minister aware that this country has an obligation to ease our exchange control regulations by 1st January in the context of the European Economic Community? Are these matters to be discussed at ministerial level between now and the end of the year and will the Government honour their obligation?

Mr. Judd: The Government always honour their obligations. I will bring this point to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Crawford: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the grave crisis affecting the steel industry in terms of jobs and investment.
I raise this issue because the British Steel Corporation appears to be acting out of panic in the matter of closures. It is patently not prepared to allow planned investment to go ahead. I am anxious that there should be no wholesale massacre of elderly steel plants, because they are needed to maintain a balanced industry and because the social reasons for maintaining employment are so great—in Scotland in particular—that these plants should be kept open. In Scotland alone the Corporation plans to close the remaining openhearth works at Ravenscraig, Hallside Dalzell, the Craigneuk bar mill and the Glengarnock blooming mill in Ayrshire.
Without going into detail, it has been suggested that as many as 6,000 jobs are directly at risk in Scotland alone. The number of jobs indirectly associated with steel could well bring the total to 12,000 to 15,000. In view of the size of this crisis and its imminence, and since it is a specific and immediate matter which is important, and in view of the exchanges at Question Time this afternoon, I submit that the subject ought to be debated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) gave me notice before 12 o'clock today of his intention to raise under Standing Order No. 9 the question of an emergency debate on
the grave crisis affecting the steel industry in terms of jobs and investment.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said. I also listened with care to the exchanges earlier this afternoon. The House knows that I do not decide the importance of the question, only whether it should take precedence over the business set out for today or tomorrow. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representations but have to rule that his submission


does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the National Coal Board (Rateable Values) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move,
That where the Select Committee on European Legislation, &amp;c., has recommended that any draft legislation or other proposal, published by the Commission of the EEC and submitted to the Council of Ministers should be further considered by the House, no Minister of the Crown shall give agreement to such a proposal in the Council of Ministers until such time as this House has debated the topic on a motion relating to that proposal.
This motion is designed to
call attention to the need to establish greater parliamentary control of legislation of the European Economic Community and full accountability by Her Majesty's Ministers for their actions in its Council of Ministers.
When my number came out of the box last week in the Ballot there were cries of "EEC debate". That is not surprising in view of the situation which arose last Thursday. I do not relish these occasions. I rather resent the amount of time that we have to spend on constitutional matters of this sort when I would prefer, perhaps, to deal with basic fundamental questions which we sometimes do not discuss sufficiently. On the other hand, what could be more basic than the relationship of an executive and legislature in this country and the super-executive which this House has taken upon itself?
While it is not a "nitty-gritty" subject, we are now talking about the fundamentals of the existence of this House and the freedoms of the elected representatives of the people and the people themselves against the executive, wherever it may be. We have to deal with a triangular super-executive, not like our own Government, which is united. We have to deal with an executive which has different characteristics, and I think that we do not sometimes sufficiently recognise this triangle of forces.
In the Council of Ministers there is no opportunity for private Government motions. There are no powers of initiation at all. Therefore, the Council of Ministers is not an assembly of this sort. Its powers are receptive. It must wait for a proposal to come before it. I know that hon. Members will say that they know all of this, but it is necessary to spell it out because we recognise that


the Government may have some difficulties in view of the nature of the operations of the Council, to which we are not privy. It operates in secret. We do not know what happens or how the procedures work. This may place some constraint upon the manner in which the Government can say to us "Yes, we shall have a debate" or "No, we shall not debate that". I wish to avoid controversy on the main question although I wish to refer, as a basis, to some of the things said last Thursday. Surprising as it may seem, there was a curious degree of common agreement on Thursday, at least sufficient for this debate, which I want to make a House of Commons occasion.
There seem to be three points of view. There was the view enunciated and analysed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—an analysis which I have not heard challenged so far. That view was taken up by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who agreed with the analysis but said "Yes, I want to go down that road," whereas other hon. Members said "No, we do not want to go down that road." A third point of view was expressed well from the Front Benches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who said "No, we do not want it. We do not think there is much of a risk in this, although we want some insurance policy." I think that in some respects my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman were not weighing the risks.
All these groups will agree that, whatever desire we may or may not have for the progress of the EEC and its institutions, we want to maintain all the powers of scrutiny, influence and the democratic powers of this House. Those who support a move towards an Assembly still say that the powers of this House are complementary to whatever power an Assembly may have. They want to retain the power to scrutinise and question our Ministers in the Council. Therefore, on the main question we can all start with a common point of view, whatever our views on other matters.
I suggest that in dealing with EEC matters in this House, the United Kingdom parliament starts off with its arm behind its back. First, as I understand

it, national parliaments have no rights under the treaty, and for the purposes of the treaty national parliaments might just as well not exist. Some people argue that the treaty is a discouragement to the activities of a national parliament. In domestic legislation, our Government are bound to provide the House with information. The Executive must provide the Command documents that we require. As I understand it, we have no rights as a House to be given information from the European Commission or Council. Any material that we receive is by courtesy of our own Executive. Therefore, the House, at least procedurally, is on a downhill slope on this issue. We are at a disadvantage in that respect, particularly in terms of the timetable on EEC business.
While the Assembly delivers opinions on proposals from the Commission, we have to fit in with the agenda of the EEC Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) has just given the timetable and a long list of documents, and presumably the Scrutiny Committee will now scurry around and discuss this timetable in a hurry and my right hon. Friend the Lord President will try to juggle the business of the House so that we can have a debate in some of these matters before the relevant dates. We do not make the timetable. We have to fit in with someone else's timetable. Therefore, from the start we are not only fighting with one hand behind our back, in terms of not having a constitutional place within the European constitution, but we are also fighting uphill. It is little wonder that in the last three years there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction and controversy about the procedures which the Government have done their best to provide.
There were debates on this matter on 3rd November 1975, 19th May 1976 and 1st April this year. Alas, proper scrutiny by this House of the intentions of the EEC and our attempts to debate those intentions have to some degree been obstructed. Time after time, the House—by using Standing Orders and points of order and, best of all, by using the tank of the Scrutiny Committee itself, with its reports and its less formal communications with the Leader of the House—has had to move away obstacle after obstacle.
Originally EEC documents had numbers only. Fancy a Bill coming forward with a number! Often the documents were not available in time, and sometimes they were overtaken by events or outdated because further documents had been issued. Then hon. Members were given Government memoranda, but some were undated and hon. Members could not tell whether they were the latest versions. There were arguments about short notice being given on the Order Paper. I am still in correspondence with my right hon. Friend on that. I do not accept his claim that the European documents have had the same priority on the remaining Orders of the Day as others. Time after time we have had to clear those other matters away before we could get to grips with the issues. I am sorry that our Executive did not act in the way I should like, although I suppose that an Executive does not go out of its way to help Parliament.
Thanks to the Standing Orders and the determination and perspicacity of hon. Members, particularly those on the Scrutiny Committee, we have removed some mistakes, including the terrible phrase "European secondary legislation". That should never have got in. It is a very good example of Euro-speak.
Standing Order No. 73A, conceived for Statutory Instruments which are genuinely our own secondary legislation, still applies to Europen super, primary legislation. Therefore, although we have dropped the phrase "secondary legislation" in our Standing Orders we still regard it as such for actual procedure. That is wrong.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the point he has just made, at least in outline. Does he agree that with a more appropriate and suitable title a similar Committee that we had some time ago, but which seems no longer to be operating, would be a good way of devoting more time to EEC instruments, provided motions could be put down on the Order Paper, perhaps dealing with the matters that are not the principal EEC items to be debated on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Spearing: I am not sure which Committee the hon. Gentleman is refer-

ring to but he has very nicely led into, my next point.
In 1975 the Select Committee on Procedure, after much labour, produced a report, House of Commons Paper No. 294 of Session 1974–75, suggesting the setting up of the sort of Committee that I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind, which could debate the issues on a motion, perhaps spending two or three Sittings on it. But the Government disagreed. On Monday 3rd November 1975 the then Lord President, the former Ted Short, said that he would introduce the proposals on the following Thursday, but the motions on the Order Paper on the following Monday did not introduce them, and unfortunately on that matter that Select Committee Report is largely a dead letter. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am glad that he made the point, because it shows the bipartisan approach on this matter.
That report was not followed through, but the Scrutiny Committee followed things through. As always, we owe it a great debt, not only for its sifting work but for its various initiatives under both the former Chairman, the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and the present Chairman, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), whom I am glad to see here today. The Committee produced two special reports, House of Commons Papers No. 336 of 1975–76 and No. 400 of 1976–77.
Matters of general procedure were so bad—I am rehearsing them only to show that we have had to fight for what we have—that in 1975–76 the Select Committee tabled Early-Day Motion No. 158 saying:
That this House deplores the inadequacy of consideration of important EEC measures, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House; and calls upon the Government, as a matter of urgency, to improve the timing, form and nature of such debates.
Matters have improved a little since then, but it is coming to something when an all-party Select Committee has to place on the Order Paper an expression of its dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government of the day are treating matters of legislation. That it came to that shows that everything we have had has had to be fought for and that everything we obtain in future will have to be fought for. We must get the Executive of the


day to tell us why we should not have these things.
This is where I come to the Select Committee's next recommendation in House of Commons Paper No. 400 of 1976–77. On the question of debating legislative proposals referred to the House by it, the Committee says that there should be an opportunity for debate before such a proposal is decided or discussed in the Council of Ministers. It continues:
The Committee believe that, provided a satisfactory draft
—that is, the draft motion before the House—
could be achieved, there would be some value in a proceeding of this kind—not least because any such resolution of the House could be held to bind any successor Government to follow the same course.
I have chanced my arm today and put such a motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Neil Marten: Very helpful.

Mr. Spearing: The motion needs to be on the Order Paper because the undertakings we have had so far—I shall read them out a little later—have been given entirely on the Floor of the House and in Written Answers. I do not believe that procedure of this sort, so vital and fundamental, should rest on an assurance by a Minister, even if it be printed in Hansard as it came from his lips or as a Written Answer. That is not good enough. I agree with the Select Committee that there is a need for a motion, and that is why I have put down my motion this afternoon. Another reason for the motion is that the original undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has since been modified by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and in a backward direction. I shall come to that when I come to the motion.
I have been rather censorious of my own Government. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Lord President really minds, because in these matters I suppose that his enjoyment would make Masoch himself feel mild. The Government have difficulties. Are they such that we should take them into account in any motion that we adopt? That would be only fair. I hazard a guess at some of the difficulties that they may have. I

say "may" because I do not know. Only those right hon. Members privileged to attend the Council of Ministers know exactly what the difficulties are.
I believe that the clue to the difficulties lies in the evidence to the Scrutiny Committee of the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Fred Peart, who had to deal with an agricultural package and more or less told the Committee "Please don't tie me down. I know that you want to discuss milk powder on the Floor of the House, but please don't tell me that it must be done, because I may not be able to bargain and get the best for Britain." We know what happened. He went off to Brussels and gave away the principle of compulsory incorporation of dried milk in cattle feed. He had a difficult negotiating session, and did not want his hands tied, but when he returned the House said that he should not have done what he did. It later passed a motion to that effect. The Scrutiny Committee gave him permission to do what he did, and subsequent events may have shown it to have been right. It said in its Eleventh Report of the Session 1975–76:
While therefore the Committee report that in their opinion the two instruments "—
two instruments on dried milk—
raise questions of political importance and recommend that they be further considered by the House, they do not consider that such further consideration need delay their adoption by the Council should such adoption prove necessary in the course of negotiations to achieve a satisfactory settlement on the package as a whole.
That package was not simply a package of legislation, which would be tricky enough. It was the farm price review for the year.
I am not arguing whether the Scrutiny Committee was right or wrong in letting the Minister off the hook. Events may have shown the answer, one way or the other, but that does not matter. The important thing is that it let the Minister off the hook, and it was a Committee of the House that did it. It made the judgment that in the best interest of Britain it might be best to let the Minister do what he could. It was a judgment of the House, or of a Committee with that responsibility. It was not a judgment of the Minister.
Therefore, we must understand the problems. It is rather like a continuous


card game. People sit down and say "Torus is coming up. Can we give way on something else? We can't be too hard on fisheries this week. We have something coming next week." We have all been in a bargaining position, but the trouble is that the EEC is a continuous round of bargaining. Unlike an international conference, it does not meet, decide and then stop. As I understand it, the whole thing is a chain. Thus, just as none of us playing cards would like to have somebody standing behind saying arbitrarily "No, you cannot use that card now", so no Executive would like to have Parliament standing behind it occasionally saying, "No, in this negotiation you cannot do that."
But this is not a card game. What is being dealt with here is the livelihood, the occupation and the welfare of the people of this country. Therefore, at that point, this House must at some stage have the power to say "No, you must not", because without that the House of Commons has lost its power even over our own domestic Executive, let alone over any other. I put it to my right hon. Friend who is to reply that that is the prime consideration which he must take into account.
I think that there is probably a double reason why we have run into difficulties. First, there is the natural reluctance of any Executive to provide more information than it can get away with giving. There may be pressure for open government, but we know that there are permanent as well as temporary features in this place, and it takes a lot of courage to give more information which can later be used against one. There is, therefore, that problem. Second, there is the problem of package dealing, to which I have already referred.
I suggest, therefore, that we must find a proper balance between the two. We have to take account of some of the difficulties which the Government may have gleaned, perhaps, from imagination or an analysis of the nature of the organisation with which they are bargaining or of the arena in which they are bargaining, but at the same time we must take account of the just and proper requirements of the House and of the people whom we represent.
We must, therefore, examine this whole area, as it were, in two parts. First, there is the procedure for documents and the machinery of the House itself in terms of Committees and Standing Orders, and then there is the question of the motion which at some time or other must be passed by the House in relation to discussion of these affairs on the floor before a Minister proceeds to Brussels. I shall now consider those two parts.
Section 1 of the European Communities Act lays down that there are two sorts of treaty. The first sort of treaty, covered in Section 1(1), comes within the ambit of the Treaty of Rome. Such treaties do not even come before the House at all. I believe that there are about 250 of them reached since we acceded to the Treaty of Rome, dealing mainly with food aid but some of them dealing with rather more esoteric and unusual subjects. I understand that these do not come to the House or to the Scrutiny Committee at all.
A more important type of treaty is covered by Section 1(3). These need ratification by member States and come to the House. They have the self-enacting force of domestic legislation. In other words, the treaties themselves, unlike former treaties by which this country was bound, become legally binding in our courts if they are relevant. Who can tell whether they are relevant? They may be, as it were, an unexploded legal bomb. We have our troubles in the House defining whether they will be of legislative effect. But, incredibly, these treaties are dealt with as though they are Statutory Instruments. We have a Definition of Treaties Order, and one has to look very hard to find out what the treaties are.
This was how on 8th and 9th December 1975 an amendment to the Treaty of Rome itself got through the House. It was not known because it was not on the Order Paper. It was a Definition of Treaties Order. Last Thursday night, after we had gone home, after the main debate and after the Highway Code men had had their debate, there was a Definition of Treaties Order before the House. It dealt with 300 pages of treaty relating to Morocco, Algeria, Portugal and Tunisia. That treaty had been discussed in Committee upstairs for about an hour.


That was the procedure. It was under camouflage.
I suggest, therefore, that legislation by stealth is still the characteristic of some of these matters, and that is what I want to see cleared away, certainly in regard to treaties.
I suggest that an amendment to the European Communities Act via an Order in Council covering Section 1(3) to remove that procedure would be appropriate. It would not be in breach of the treaty. These treaties have to be ratified according to our own national procedures, and, as I see it, the present procedure is subterranean. Some people, no doubt, would give an even worse summing up of that type of procedure. It is, I suppose, typical of an Executive to use the Statutory Instrument procedure in that way. I know that it is all about Crown Prerogative, but it is not good enough.
The other great set of treaty obligations comes under Section 2(1). These go to the Scrutiny Committee, although that Committee does not see all the legislation of the EEC because some of it deals with customs duties and so forth. I see the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West in his place, and hope that he will catch the eye of the Chair later. The trouble is that the Scrutiny Committee can do only half a job because, although we speak well of the Scrutiny Committee, giving it well-deserved plaudits for standing up to the Lord President and so on, it can do no more than decide whether a document should be debated on the Floor. It is a sifting Committee, a switching Committee.
Like all our Select Committees, the Scrutiny Committee is. I hope, reasonably well staffed, it has papers—perhaps it needs more: I do not know, and we may hear—and it does a lot of work, it produces a lot of reports, it asks Ministers questions, having them up to say what these things are all about. All that is very good, but when the Scrutiny Committee has done all that the House has asked of it, it can then decide only whether there should be a debate on the Floor. But, the Committee having gone to all the trouble to define whether a matter is important enough, for us then to be estopped from debating or consider-

ing the merits of the proposals is uneconomic, to say the least.
What happens then? The Scrutiny Committee having decided that the House should debate these matters, more often than not a Lord President will put down a motion to send them upstairs to a Committee. Up they go to a Committee, unless 20 of us stand, which we did the other week. What happens then? These matters are discussed for one and a half hours, as a Statutory Instrument is discussed, on a meaningless motion which says that the Committee "have considered" the document. If the Committee does not like it and votes against the motion, that does not make a scrap of difference, and back it comes to the Floor.
We are here considering the health of democracy in this country. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said in a very good speech last week—I hope that we shall hear more like it from him Parliaments do not have such a reputation that they should think too much about reproducing themselves elsewhere with too much alacrity—or words to that effect. If our constituents knew that that sort of ridiculous proceeding went on in Committee, they would be critical of us, and rightly so.
What happens when a substantive motion comes before the House on the Order Paper to the effect that the House "approves" or "takes note" of a document? It can be on the Order Paper right at the end of the day. It does not have to come on at 3.30 p.m. One of the scandals of our procedure is that, when the Statutory Instrument procedure for consideration in Committee was first initiated, it was understood that Statutory instruments sent to Committee would come back to the Floor for decision at the start of public business, but that has not happened. It was what the Lord President said at the Dispatch Box at the time, but when the Standing Orders came to be drafted that magic point was not included.
It is very easy for anything to go upstairs to a Committee, come back at the end of the Order Paper, and then be passed virtually on the nod.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is not all that the hon. Gentleman is saying merely this, that the Report of the Procedure Committee on which he and


I served pointed out to the House what would happen if the House did not take a certain course, but he is then saying that the sifting committee, the Scrutiny Committee, is trying to do some of the work but it is in the position that the Procedure Committee said it would be in, of being a toothless tiger? Although one may be sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's motion, is not our position such that the only way, or the major way, to put matters right lies in the Lord President saying that the basis of the original Procedure Committee Report was right and it ought to be implemented by changes in our Standing Orders?

Mr. Spearing: I agree that we need to change Standing Orders as our Procedure Committee recommended so long ago. I think that that would ease the situation. But I am not convinced that that would give the total answer, and perhaps the new Procedure Committee which is looking at these matters will come up with an answer. I am disturbed that the technical effort which is imposed on the Scrutiny Committee and Officers of the House in the evidence which they take from Ministers, is as it were, left to waste. I know that it cannot easily be used. I know that one can get reports. One needs seven or eight documents for these debates, which makes things difficult.
What can be done? I believe that the first thing to do is to make sure that we get this procedure put right; that we do not have clandestine legislation by Statutory Instrument and treaty. That could be done, and perhaps the usual channels could get an agreement on this matter. It is within the competence of the United Kingdom.
I think, too, that we should consider the point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) and get the Standing Order amended. In April my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and I had a debate when the Standing Orders might have been changed. Unfortunately, that debate was on a Friday. For some inexplicable reason the Government were not happy with our view, and no change was made.

I press my right hon. Friend to look at the amendments again. They have appeared on the Order Paper twice, and he and those who assist him know them very well.
The main point of our business this afternoon is the motion, which I hope the House will pass. I want to explain the history of the undertakings that have been given. On 11th June 1974 my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), to whom the House and the country owe a great debt, intervened during the speech of my now right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and asked:
….will my hon. Friend now give an assurance that in no case will the Government allow any legislative instrument to proceed further in the EEC if the Scrutiny Committee has notified my right hon. and hon. Friends that it thinks that it should be examined by this House.
My right hon. Friend replied:
Certainly. In the case of legislative instruments, any other arrangement would be intolerable."—[Official Report, 11th June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 1547.]
People say that Parliament is no good, but they should thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North for his intervention in that debate, and they should think of what the Scrutiny Committee has done, and on which our edifice has been built. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has changed that under-taking. I know that it was given off the cuff, but my right hon. Friend apparently does not agree that any other procedure would be intolerable, because after various debates he made a promised statement.
In answer to a Written Question—it was a bad statement and I had better read it —my right hon. Friend told us what he proposed. His statement was made during the Summer Recess and many people may not have read it. He said:
Ministers will not give agreement to any legislative proposal recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for further consideration by the House, before the House has given it that consideration, unless the Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld…".
So far so good, because that puts the onus on the Scrutiny Committee, just as it did with milk. We are not altering that position. The Scrutiny Committee can give


the Minister a let out. But then my right hon. Friend spoilt it by saying:
or the Minister concerned is satisfied that agreement should not be withheld for reasons which he will at the first opportunity explain to the House."—[Official Report, 4th August 1976; Vol. 916, c. 803.]
In other words, we are now in the position that the undertaking given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark-brook has been changed by the Lord President of the Council. He is happy that the Scrutiny Committee can make a judgment and let the Minister off the hook, but he wants to go further. If the Scrutiny Committee will not let the Minister off the hook, my right hon. Friend wants the Minister to let himself off it. That is what he is saying, and he is drawing back on the earlier undertaking, and drawing back a long way.
I understand the difficulties, and I have tried to underline them. Passing the motion would not prevent the Scrutiny Committee from letting the Minister off the hook. It would still be able to ask for a debate on a motion, and that would not be a debate on the Adjournment, and things like that. It would be a debate on a substantive motion.
The proposal does not ask for a decision. In other words, once the matter has been discussed it will be taken to have been debated. If there is no quorum in a Division, the issue will be regarded as having been debated. There is no blocking mechanism that can be used by a small number of people. I hope that I have gone some way towards helping my right hon. Friend in what would be a dilemma. The proposal would prevent a Minister from deciding whether the House should debate the issue before a decision was taken.
I put it to my right hon. Friend that, in an uncharacteristic way, he has stepped over an important line. The House allows the Scrutiny Committee to decide whether a matter should come to the House before the Minister decides, or whether the Minister can deal with the matter before that happens. We might disagree with that decision, but we give a Committee of the House that responsibility. There is all the difference between the Committee and the House deciding, and the Minister deciding.
The Lord President of the Council is an autocratic figure because the office of Lord President of the Council is an autocratic function, but my right hon. Friend is also Leader of the House, which is a democratic function, and sometimes those two functions conflict. They probably conflict in this regard, but I remind my right hon. Friend that he shares with the rest of us a third function, which is to represent part of the British public. Therefore, it is two to one on the side of democracy.
I believe that there should be democracy in the EEC. I do not believe that the establishment of democracy in the EEC by any method need reduce it here. Indeed, if the EEC demands that it be reduced here there is something wrong. By accepting the motion my right hon. Friend would not alter the present position, but he would show himself to be on the side of democracy. If he does otherwise, he will be on the side of autocracy. It will be the Minister and not the House who will make the decision.
I suggest that if my right hon. Friend does not accept the motion he must explain why, because the Prime Minister in two or three speeches recently, and in his famous letter to the National Executive Council of the Labour Party, has made it clear that the rights of national Governments and Parliaments must be protected, and this is a right of Parliament. If my right hon. Friend does not accept the motion the Prime Minister's words and his letter will not be worth the paper on which they are written.

4.38 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on the use that he has made of his luck in the draw. As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee —in other words, the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c.—I welcome very much the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in our work and the close attention that he has given to it.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as do all those who do much hard work on that Committee, not all the comments that we receive are uncritical. The Economist of 19th November contained the following sentence:
While Mr. Callaghan lectures on the need for greater parliamentary control over EEC


policy, the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee charged with watching the outpourings from Brussels remains largrely ineffective….
Other papers, too, have taken up that line. I have seen similar comments in The Times and other newspapers. I think that such comments show a woeful lack of understanding of the purpose of the Scrutiny Committee. They show also a complete failure to recognise the limitations imposed upon the Committee by its terms of reference, and I think that before one goes any deeper into this question I should ask the House to bear with me while I set them out. The terms of reference are as follows:
…to consider draft proposals by the Commission of the European Economic Community for legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers or to the European Council whether or not such documents originate from the Commission and to report their opinion as to whether such proposals or other documents raise questions of legal or political importance, to give their reasons for their opinion, to report what matters of principle or policy may be affected thereby, and to what extent they may affect the law of the United Kingdom, and to make recommendations for the further consideration of such proposals and other documents by the House.…
We in the Scrutiny Committee do not attempt to pass collective judgment on the merits of any particular proposal. It would be very difficult for us to do so in most cases. We have a membership of 16, but that small number of hon. Members represents most shades of opinion in relation to views on the Common Market. It would be most difficult each week to arrive at a single point of view which would make any sense at all in order to help further consideration of these matters by the House of Commons.
I should like briefly to rehearse the outline of the method of work of the Scrutiny Committee. We have to determine whether documents coming to us are of political or legal significance and, if we do so, we try to support our conclusion with a brief paragraph or two. Sometimes we go further and our comment runs to several pages. Sometimes, if time allows, these matters are examined in greater depth before we come to any conclusion.
We then invite representations from interested parties outside the House, and also on occasion we call in and cross-

examine expert witnesses to assist us in arriving at our conclusions. Furthermore, from time to time we see and question Ministers. In the past few months we have had before us the Leader of the House, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Transport, a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, and other Ministers. The reports on all these meetings and encounters are made available to every Member of the House and are sent out with the Votes.
I am tempted to say more about the Committee and its work largely because of the value, as I see it, of what it does and because it engages hon. Members in a great deal of close and detailed study and occupies them over a considerable period of time. Furthermore, we are served, as the hon. Member for Newham, South made clear, by an extremely able staff of advisers who are assiduous in enabling us to make the best use of the comparatively limited time that is usually at our disposal.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend has given an interesting and accurate account of the work of the Committee. However, a little earlier he mentioned criticisms that had been made by political commentators, such as a Mr. Wood who writes in The Times. The reason is that the House of Lords serves up its reports in nice blue covers that are easily identifiable and read by the Press, whereas our criticisms of regulations are always made late at night when the Press has gone home to sleep.

Sir J. Eden: I shall be saying something about that in a moment.
In my view, the criticisms made of us are misdirected. They should be criticisms of the use made by this House of the reports of the Scrutiny Committee —that is where the criticisms should fall. Therefore, I believe that those criticisms show a complete lack of understanding of what the Scrutiny Committee is about and what it was set up to do.

Mr. Marten: I have never seen Mr. Wood here.

Sir J. Eden: Comparisons have also been made between our Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities. But the


Lords Committee is a different animal and its terms of reference are very much wider than ours. The terms of reference of the Lords Committee are:
To consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn.
Apart from having those wider terms of reference, I would also emphasise that the Lords Committee has many more members than does our Committee. Using its powers of co-optation, it has currently a membership of 80. That enables that Committee to have a large number of Sub-Committees to examine various aspects. It also has more time at its disposal than is available to hon. Members. It may also be said—and this is a relevant point—that members of the Lords Committee are not so deeply divided on the question of the Common Market as we tend to be in this House.
I see the Lords Committee not in any sense as a rival to the work we do here, but as complementary to the work we attempt to do on behalf of Parliament as a whole. We certainly work as closely as we can with the Lords Committee and, wherever possible, avoid duplication.
Having given a cursory outline of the work of our Committee, I accept that improvements are possible and desirable. The Committee has already identified a number of improvements that it supports, and these were set out in special reports, the last of which was available as House of Commons Paper No. 400. I shall not rehearse those matters again this afternoon, but let me give an example of one or two of the things we should like to see happen.
We want debates to take place in good time before Ministers have to come to a conclusion in the Council of Ministers. Debates should be held in time to allow Ministers to note the views of this House and to take them fully into account in the later negotiations rather than right at the last moment just before Ministers go to Brussels, when they speak in debates in order to salve their consciences or to honour undertakings that they have given to the House.
When the Economist reports adversely on our work and criticises us because our comments are made after the EEC decisions are taken rather than before, it is completely wrong. It does not know what it is talking about. Perhaps the political correspondent of the Economist should sit in on one of our sessions. If he did, he would learn something of what the Committee does.

Mr. Marten: He is too idle.

Sir J. Eden: Sometimes it is true that these debates take place at a late stage, but that happens not through the fault of the Scrutiny Committee but at the behest of Ministers.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Since the right hon. Gentleman rightly insists that there is a need for debate well before decisions are taken in Brussels, may I take it that he supports my hon. Friend's motion?

Sir J. Eden: I shall be coming to that matter. We want debates to be held in good time.
We also want debates not to be held within the one-and-a-half-hour writ that now runs. Such debates should be treated differently from what happens to Statutory Instruments. There are many matters of great importance and significance that need to be fully debated in the House. If they were treated in the same way as Bills are treated, they would never be able to be brushed side within a debate lasting one and a half hours. They should be given full and proper attention.
Surely such debates should take place earlier in the parliamentary day. Most of the debates are held after 10 p.m. It is true that we have had many more of them and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the attention he has given to this matter and for ensuring that much of the backlog which had accumulated has been worked off. But most of these debates are put down to take place after 10 o'clock, and it is impossible then properly to test the opinion of the House.
The purpose of the debates must be to get a clear expression of Back-Bench views and not just to give the principal protagonists on either side of the Common Market argument the opportunity to rehearse the same points time and again. We need to bring into the debates Members who know about the topics under


discussion and to give them the chance to express their opinion about how we are likely to be affected by the Commission's proposals. We are unlikely to have that sort of expression of opinion unless debates take place earlier in the day.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of these debates taking place at the appropriate time. Will he say something about the problem with which the House is presented when, in the course of a debate on an instrument referred to the House by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee, it appears that the matter is still subject to further negotiations and that the proposals may undergo a substantial change before a final decision is taken? I am sure that this is something which has engaged the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee and although it is not, in terms, covered by the motion, would the right hon. Gentleman care to refer to it, since many of us are extremely anxious about the matter?

Sir J. Eden: That is one of the points that I shall touch on in referring to the motion. The hon. Member for Newham, South rightly said that he had drawn on the words in the Committee's special report, House of Commons Paper No. 400, paragraph 28. In that report we drew attention to the desirability of expressing in a formal motion of the House the undertaking given by the Government.
The undertaking is slightly different from the words in the motion. The motion refers to:
any draft legislation or other proposal, published by the Commission".
The undertaking given by the Leader of the House refers to "any legislative proposal". There is a considerable difference.
I tend to come down strongly in favour of the words of the hon. Member for Newham, South. We have frequently found it helpful to have debates in the House on consultative documents and not just on final proposals. That is what Ministers should wish to hear, because they should have the view of the House at the early formative stage. If proposals change substantially as a result of negotiations and what amounts to a new pro-

posal emerges, we would have the chance of a second look at it.
This is what the Leader of the House, as a result of our representations, has provided. We get a fresh explanatory memorandum submitted to us—and it will be available to all hon. Members—so that we have the opportunity of a second stage consideration in the light of changes that may have taken place in negotiations. We can then either uphold our original recommendation for further consideration by the House or withdraw it. That is why I do not go all the way with the wording of the motion. We need to preserve a certain degree of flexibility in handling these matters.

Mr. Powell: I wonder whether a difficulty is created by the words in the motion:
published by the Commission of the EEC".
In many cases, such as those to which the right hon. Gentleman has been referring, although there may be a new explanatory memorandum which may lift part of the veil over what has been going on in the Council of Ministers, the proposals before us would be the original proposals published by the EEC. There would be no subsequent official publication.

Sir J. Eden: That is a valid point. I shall not attempt to redraft the motion to encompass what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but we have in mind that we consider documents other than those published by the Commission. The Tindemans Report is an example. The change in our terms of reference enables us to consider such matters. Bearing in mind what is likely to come to us as a result of enlargement of the EEC it is as well to preserve this degree of flexibility in the subjects selected for debate.
I thank the Government and the Leader of the House for the moves that they have made and for the additional explanatory memoranda that are provided to inform the Committee of changes. There are a number of other ways in which we should press Ministers for further improvements.
The first is already being pursued. We are calling for a much better system of reporting back to the Committee and lettings its members know what is happening as a result of the discussions in


which it has been engaged. Fuller reports might provide an opportunity for the Committee and the House to cross-examine Ministers and to question them further.
Important though these matters are, however, we are still only tinkering with the question. We really need either substantially enlarged terms of reference or a fully-fledged Select Committee on European affairs. We should then be able to combine the work of scrutiny—which must be preserved whatever else comes along—with a discussion of merit.
I do not believe that we should go as far as the Danes, who seek to mandate Ministers. Their committee can take a decision on an issue and it is then binding on the Folketing. I do not think that this House would accept that in relation to our Committee, and I would not recommend it. Nor do I believe that we should emulate the French, who have subsumed discussion of EEC matters within their Foreign Affairs Committee to the point where they are virtually submerged. The Prime Minister, in his letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, referred to
democratic control of Community business".
I do not know exactly what he had in mind and I wonder whether he does. He said:
We should try to define categories of Community legislation and develop greater Parliamentary control over those categories which we would otherwise have considered appropriate for Parliamentary legislation.
That might be possible, but I do not think that it will get us very far. It is important for us not to be led too easily along that route. I am thinking particularly of such matters as the annual farm price review, which is not a legislative proposal, and the budget, which might not come within the Prime Minister's category.
Let me put one point to the Leader of the House. Will he make it possible for a discussion on these matters to be held in the Select Committee? Will he analyse what the Prime Minister had in mind and consult the Select Committee before any finality is reached? I say that in all humility, but with great emphasis, on behalf of the hon. Members who serve on that Committee. They have built up a fund of experience on these matters and it would be folly to pass that by. While

doing that, will the right hon. Gentleman also at least await the report of the Select Committee on Procedure?
Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman has the power to achieve more effective debates on these matters in the House. I urge him to use it.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I wish to intervene only briefly in the debate because the main arguments have already been deployed extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I want to emphasise the point that in dealing with European legislation and proposals we are involved in a continuing process. It has been said that a proposal may come forward and be looked at by the Scrutiny Committee, but that subsequently the Commission or Council of Ministers, or some other European body, can bring forward all kinds of modifications so that the ultimate proposal may be quite different from the original document that came before this House or the Scrutiny Committee.
We are not, therefore, dealing with a situation in which a proposal comes forward in Brussels, passes to our Scrutiny Committee and then may or may not be discussed on the Floor of the House. We are dealing with a continuous process in which proposals related to anything from energy and fisheries to the environment and so on, are continuously coming up and being reviewed with a whole mass of directives and regulations arising from consideration of these matters in Brussels. The defect here is simply that the House does not possess a coherent Committee system. Until it does, we shall not be able adequately or properly to deal with Community legislation or a great many other matters which are entirely within our powers.
I do not wish in any way to criticise the Scrutiny Committee which has done an invaluable job and without which we would have been totally at sea over the past few years of our membership of the EEC. But the Committee suffers from lack of time. It is under enormous pressure and it is constituted of only 16 hon. Members. I do not see how 16 hon. Members can possibly examine effectively the enormous range of matters with which the European Communities


deal. I cannot see that one small Committee can adequately scrutinise, digest and present the mass of legislation involved to the House, even on its limited remit which is simply to draw our attention to whether matters are important.

Mr. Roger Moate: May I point out to the hon. Member that in our domestic secondary legislation a very much smaller Committee with an equally limited remit considers a vast volume of secondary legislation?

Mr. Hooley: That is a further defect of our procedures. We must have a coherent Committee system so that the Departments of State can come under scrutiny from a group of hon. Members who over a period of time will become familiar with a particular area of public policy, can build up their own expertise, can draw on the knowledge of a qualified staff, and can be in a position, over the years, successfully to challenge, scrutinise and probe Government policy. Related to that, it would be its duty to probe into the mass of regulations and directives which come from Brussels.
I do not see how we can hope to control or effectively influence all the decisions that emerge from the Communities unless we have a Committee system on that scale and with that job.
A very tentative move in that direction has been made since I understand that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has decided through its own general purposes sub-committee to take on the task of examining some of the European directives in the light of that Committee's interests and remit. That is a useful move, but I doubt whether it goes far enough.
In case anyone doubts the importance of this issue I noted myself in a recent report from the Scrutiny Committee a reference to the need for the Community to produce 140 million tonnes of oil by 1985. As far as I know the United Kingdom is the only member which has oil that would even remotely approach that figure. This means that unless there is some serious debate in the House on that proposition, which is part of the Community's general energy strategy, the United Kingdom might be faced with a curious and far reaching decision on depletion policy for our oil. That is a decision that this

House should debate extensively before Ministers came to any conclusion or were committed to any definite policy on the subject.
I am sure that we shall never achieve proper democratic scrutiny and control along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South unless we radically overhaul our Committee system here. That is a wider proposition that goes beyond this debate. But the problem of scrutinising what is happening in Brussels, of scrutinising the mass of legislation which we are supposed to examine on behalf of the British people, cannot be dealt with by our existing Committee system. Until we change it, bring it up to date and make it more effective we are faced with an insoluble problem.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I very much agree with the three hon. Members who have spoken so far, and that excuses me from repeating what they have said.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has done us a great service in choosing this subject. I agree with him about the need for control over the legislation which comes out of the Common Market. I agree also with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), about the need for fuller debates and for debates before final decisions are taken. Those debates should come in good time so that Ministers may give consideration to the views of the House of Commons before they go to the final discussion.
The right hon. Member also did us a service by pointing out the limitations imposed upon the Committee by its terms of reference, and by suggesting that they should be widened and that something like the Lords Committee might be introduced. I agree that this is a continuing matter and that we must review the whole Committee system of the House of Commons if we are properly to undertake what for us is a new job.
It happens that my constituents have lately complained to me about a number of regulations that they allege had emanated from the EEC. They complain about regulations concerning slaughterhouses, eggs, milk, transport, the low price of store cattle and especially about


fishing. As a Member of Parliament I know what to do when my constituents complain about the shortcominggs of the Government. It is my duty to harry the appropriate Minister, to make him accept his responsibility and to give some explanation of what is happening and, if possible, to put the matter right. I found myself in some difficulty when my constituents complained about regulations that were said to emanate from Brussels. I found that several of them did not come from that quarter at all. One of the difficulties that we shall face in the coming years, especially if a Scottish Assembly is established, is that a great many people in the United Kingdom will not know from where important regulations affecting their lives have come. The House had better give some little attention to that matter.
As this problem caused me considerable concern I thought that I had better write to the Chairman of the Commission, which I accordingly did. I received a full and helpful reply. I shall quote one passage of Mr. Jenkins' letter that states:
What I would strongly deny, however, is that the Commission is engaged in the imposition of inappropriate and harmful regulations. In the first place, it is not a case of imposing regulations at all. Most important Community legislation goes through all the processes of consultation with the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and discussion in the Council of Ministers, at all of which stages public interest and national interest can be brought to bear upon our proposals before they reach the statute book.
Far be it from me to attack the admirable people who make up the various bodies referred to in the letter, but they are, I suspect, operating at second hand. They are not in direct contact with the electorate, and the electorate is in some difficulty about knowing how to make its views known. Its views are often different from those of the Economic and Social Committee, or those of the other bodies to which reference is made. Its interests are not always national interests. They are often local and personal interests. They are often the interests of a body of people in one part of the country.
The letter continues:
I sometimes wonder whether it is fully realised in the United Kingdom how open the Community system is to public discussion, as compared with the British tradition of gov-

ernment; and how often the press reports of 'decrees from Brussels' are really only proposals which are just entering the arena of public debate. The truth is that the Community practises a degree of open government, which is quite surprising to most British politicians, though it is of course in the best Liberal tradition!
I am exceedingly glad to hear that.
To touch on a point that has already been made, very often in this House we do not know what stage has been reached in the system that is operated at Brussels. We know, of course, what is happening within our own politics. We can read things in party manifestos and in Green Papers and White Papers. However, we do not have such a clear idea of the buildup of policy in the Common Market.
The letter continues:
In the second place, we have firmly put aside the idea of standardisation for standardisation's sake, which is the sinister implication of 'harmonisation' in the minds of many people.
Certainly my constituents are rather fearful that harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation is just what the Commission is all about on occasions. I am glad to be told that it does not adopt that approach, but I still think that we need a better channel of communication. Whether that is to come from the House or direct from Brussels, I do not know. Equally, I do not know whether things will change when the new European Parliament is elected. It is only my business to point out where the shoe pinches and to ask what proposals are being made. It would be useful if we had further debates in the House and further opportunity to examine our own Ministers on these important matters.
From where does Brussels get its policies? I put a specific question to Mr. Jenkins on fishing quotas. I received a note that states:
The Commission has proposed quotas for haddock, cod, whiting and other species for 1977, and again for 1978. The purpose of limiting catches of these species is to protect or rebuild stocks so as to assure future supplies. It is, however, impossible for a fishing boat to catch just one species at a time.
That is what I pointed out. It goes on to say:
This is one of the intractable problems".
However, it is not the duty of Brussels to face us with decisions that are unworkable and to propose intractable problems. There are other ways of overcoming the


problem, but none of them was acceptable to Brussels. It is not good enough to say "This is an intractable problem but we shall enforce this solution."
The commentary continues:
As far as industrial fishing is concerned, it is perfectly true that inspection of the catch in port is virtually impossible, in the sense that the proportion of individual species can no longer be assessed…But on-the-spot inspection at sea is practical.
It would only be practicable if we had an enormous fleet for inspectors. Surely we have a right to know who made these proposals. From where do they come?
There is the same situation in respect of energy, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said. There is grave anxiety about many aspects of the EEC's agricultural policy in some parts of the country. As Members of this place we are supposed to find out what is going on, but Ministers often succeed in stonewalling. At any rate, we should know who is responsible. At present I do not feel that I know who is responsible in Brussels. And I do not know why there is such a volume of regulations.
I speak as a supporter of the EEC. I do not want it to fail. However, whatever its global intentions may be, people sometimes find that its effect on their daily lives is harmful. That is the real danger. The EEC is a splendid conception, but it must mobilise support by showing that it is not harming the individual in his normal occupation and ordinary daily life. If it is to avoid that, it must reassure and ease where there are pinches. It must ensure that ordinary people have some means of expressing their views. They should be able to find out who is responsible if something has gone wrong, and there must be machinery within the EEC to enable others to try to put right that which has gone wrong.
If that is done through the House, I agree with the terms of the motion. I think that it would be a valuable contribution. However, I wonder whether that is enough. I wonder whether it is not necessary to spend a great deal more effort to determine how we shall control Brussels from the point of view of the ordinary person in this country.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I agree with everything that the right hon.

Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has said, but I cannot help wondering whether it would not have been a good thing if the Liberal Party had discovered some of these truths before it developed such a great enthusiasm for joining the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that it was only in the past week or two that some of these truths had come home to him. I also wondered whether he had replied to Mr. Jenkins' letter and at least pointed out to him the simple fact, of which Mr. Jenkins would not seem to be aware, that the House meets in public whereas the Council of Ministers legislates in secret, which is a rather different situation.
I shall briefly urge three points upon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. First, I believe that what we are dealing with in debating the motion is legislation. We are concerned with legislative instruments that will be binding in our courts on the British public. One of the causes of the problem is that in Brussels—to some extent it is the case in the Foreign Office—as opposed to this country there is constant confusion between negotiation and legislation. Negotiation is one thing and legislation is quite another.
The Government have the right to negotiate, to bargain, to have discussions in secret from time to time and then to recommend the results of their negotiations to the House. They do not have a right to legislate in this place by allowing a Minister to say "I am introducing a Bill. I cannot give you the exact text because we have not had time to work it out. In any case, I have been in rather a hurry in the past few days. I have had to have discussions with many people. Therefore, I must ask you to pass the Bill into law without my being able to give you further information about it."
What would we think if an argument of that sort were produced by a British Minister when introducing British legislation? I do not think it is good enough for Ministers or the Government to argue that they cannot in all cases ensure that there is a discussion in due time in the House because sometimes Ministers are involved in negotiations in Brussels. Of course they are so involved, but that should not absolve them from the obligation to hold a discussion or to permit a discussion in this place in good time


before a legislative act is passed in Brussels.
Secondly, I urge the Leader of the House to accept that the proposal in the motion is an extremely modest advance indeed. We can discuss all sorts of far better reforms and improvements to the conduct of the Scrutiny Committee and to the Committees of the House but that is not what is proposed in the motion. All that is proposed is that the undertaking given to me as long ago as June 1974 by a senior Minister in the Foreign Office should be embodied in a resolution of the House. We are asking no more than that the Government should agree to a resolution which confirms what they profess to be doing as a result of their undertaking.
My right hon. Friend might argue that he would have drafted the resolution differently but its essence is simply to ensure that where the Scrutiny Committee has recommended a debate in the House the Minister cannot accept a legislative fait accompli in Brussels until that debate has taken place. The motion does not require that there should be a decision at the end of a debate. I should like to see that but it is not what we are proposing.
I hope that when so modest a proposal is put forward the Leader of the House will be able to tell us that he accepts it, or the full substance of it. Modest as it is, it is surely in accordance with the Prime Minister's letter to the Secretary of the Labour Party. That letter said that one of the main aims of the Government was to achieve greater national control over EEC legislation. The Prime Minister's letter did not merely say that we need more democratic control over EEC legislation—that phrase is becoming a platitude. The letter went beyond that and spoke of greater control by national parliaments.
All we are asking is that the Government put into proper parliamentary form an undertaking which they gave three years ago and which goes only a modest step towards achieving what the Prime Minister has said is the main objective of the Government.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: If anybody were to oppose this motion we should have grounds for the deepest

suspicion of that person or party. Speaking, as I can, for a number of Back-Bench colleagues, I should like to accept the motion on their behalf.
I shall deal with one or two points that were raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). He said that we needed a larger Scrutiny Committee. I disagree with him about that. Perhaps he is not aware that we have advisers to take us through many of the technicalities in the documents. After all, we are politicians and not technicians. We have developed a political nose or nous for picking out the important from the unimportant.
The most dreary of documents come before us. There may be a document about jute in India, for example. Some people might think that that is unimportant but because we are politicians we know that it affects the labour situation in Dundee, which is a jute manufacturing area. We would therefore recommend that case for debate because we see constituency interests in a matter as dull as jute. I do not believe that we need a larger Committee.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) says that he finds difficulty in keeping track of all the various proposals. I see his point. Perhaps I can help him. If he keeps an eye on the Vote Office he will find long yellow forms which list about 100 EEC documents a week. I look at them just for the hell of it. If the right hon. Gentleman does that he will learn exactly what is going on in that extraordinary place over the water.

Mr. Spearing: On the subject of keeping track of documents, does the hon. Member remember that in a Select Committee report on procedure there was a distinct recommendation that a new system of indexing and keeping track of these documents be instituted? Those recommendations were turned down by the Lord President.

Mr. Marten: I am sure that the hon. Member would find such a document interesting.
The hon. Member for Heeley wanted to know how we could possibly make a judgment on some of the complicated proposals. Let us take the subject of eviscerated chicken, for example. As a


boy I always knew about chickens but I did not know about eviscerated chicken. I consulted local producers who told me all about it, about its cost and the vast increase in bureaucracy that the proposal would produce. However, when I examined the proposal for the harmonisation of emulsified mayonnaise, I learned that it involved no world-shattering proposal, so I did not raise the matter but just read about it. One has a feel for what is worth debating and what is not.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) made an excellent speech on the Scrutiny Committee and I agree with most of what he said. The answer to the problem is to limit the output of documents each week from the EEC. If we said that it should publish no more than 10 documents per week and gradually reduced that number to nil, the House would be happier and would be able to cope.
I turn to the subject of the Press. I agree that it is a curious campaign—it may be "follow my leader"—by this Mr. Wood. I do remember his name because recently his articles have been suffering from Dutch elm disease. It is extraordinary that an article that he wrote in The Times some time ago was picked up by the Economist, translated by the worthies at the Financial Times and become gospel in the Press arena. The members of the Press are wrong. The Lords serve up the argument for them and all they have to do is to copy it out and they have a nice article. If they wanted to hear our arguments they would have to stay up until 11.30 at night. They would not like that.
We should debate these regulations and proposals at an earlier hour. On one occasion we debated three fairly important regulations in one day, as we do in the Consolidated Fund debates. If we debated these matters at an earlier hour it would give reasonable people a chance to vote on these unreasonable proposals.
We should not be asked to debate a document that is not available. That situation has arisen in the past. It would be curious if we were asked to have a Second Reading debate on a Bill that had not been published. We would reject such a proposal. Ministers who have been

asked to come here and talk should simply refuse to do so when they have no documents available, or have not the right or updated documents.
The motion formalises the practice which has been used in this House for some time, although there have been some breaches of it. The motion is quite all right as far as it goes, although I think it was only the other day that we were asked to debate railway accounts when the document had already been adopted. That is the sort of thing we must try to prevent—not that I think that it was a vastly important matter. But it is an example, nevertheless, of what we should try to prevent.
It is very dull always "to take note" of motions. Could not the Government say that they approve something, or approve in general or disapprove, and put a little spice into the whole debate? There might then be a greater attendance at these debates.
When we have debated something in this House and the Minister goes forward on a "take note" motion, the matter is debated, and then an alteration is made in the document at the Council of Ministers, I believe that the Minister concerned should only agree to it there and then ad referendum to this House. That is a fundamental point which the Danes have insisted on, although I do not agree with their system, because the Danish Minister has to ring up the chairman of the Danish scrutiny committee at maybe 3 a.m. I should not like to have that system imposed on his counterpart here. Once a matter has been debated in this House, if it is then changed at the Council of Ministers it should be brought back to this House, but without the necessity of disturbing anyone's sleep.
After all, there is no hurry in regard to nearly all this legislation. Many of the things which we have before us in this House have been coming along nicely over a period of two years. What does one more month matter? It matters not at all. But Ministers ought to be more tightly controlled, when they go off to Brussels, than they are at the moment. After a "take note" motion has been before the House, the Minister, when he gets to Brussels, can do something entirely different, because there has been no consensus vote or declaration. There


has merely been an expression of individual Back-Bench views, and the Minister is not tied at all.
When a draft document from the Commission is before this House we should be allowed to amend it. We ought to be allowed to propose the deletion, for example, of article 5 of such-and-such a document. I do not think that we do that at the moment.
When Ministers have had their meetings in Brussels they ought to be required to make statements here about what they have been up to. The worst offender is the Treasury, which went off to Brussels and agreed the sixth directive on value added tax. No statement was made to this House. All that happened was that a Written Question was planted by a supporter of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the information was given by way of a Written Answer in the House of Commons. That is a monstrous way in which to treat the House on such a very important point. The net result is that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative side have never understood the sixth directive. They are always saying that the exemption limits should be £10,000, but if they had read the directive they would know that it is impossible to have an exemption limit of £10,000. It has to be lower than that. If there had been a statement to the House they would not all be under that illusion.
I agree with the contention that the Council of Ministers should sit in the open. It is absolutely inexusable that it should sit in secret. It is not a Cabinet. It is not a Government. Why not open it up and make it more democratic? We are to have direct elections in order to make the Community more democratic. Let the Council of Ministers make a start there. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would agree with that.
This is an important debate because the motion seeks to lay down something which has to be obeyed. The practice has been carried out fairly well in the past but the motion seeks to lay down something quite firmly. I hope that it will be accepted by both sides of the House. I shall be deeply suspicious if it is turned down by either side. In the

Common Market as a whole I think we are now at a turning point, and this is one of the wedges that we ought to put down.
We now know that the Conservative Party and the Government will give no additional powers to the European Parliament without a specific Act of Parliament. We shall not have these powers increased by smuggling through Section 1 or Section 2 of the European Communities Act. This is a major victory. I think that the feeling from today's debate is that we should have more control over Ministers. That would be a good thing. Last Thursday we had a statement from the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party that he was against a federal Europe. That is another milestone in our progress. At last that has become clear.
When the EEC develops with the addition of three new member countries, I think we shall have to look again at all the procedures and state what the Common Market is to mean in terms of the enforcement of all these regulations. If regulations or laws are made and cannot be enforced, the whole thing breaks down. I often wonder how the Community proposes to monitor and enforce the evisceration of chicken on the Macedonian frontier and, if Turkey joins the EEC, in Central Anatolia. It may sound absurd, but that is the essence of it. If the EEC cannot supervise the evisceration of chicken on the Macedonian frontier and in Central Anatolia, the law will not be carried out. What is the purpose of having laws if they cannot be enforced? If this legislative function were taken from the Community there would be far less of the sort of trouble that we are talking about today, and we should be able to have co-operation between the various countries in a wider Europe.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Arnold: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) may find me the odd man out, not because we both signed the Select Committee report but because I think we have probably drawn different conclusions from one or two things in it.
In this debate the House is once again faced with the important and difficult problem of reconciling our traditional


methods of dealing with these matters in this House with the still relatively new system—to us—of legislative activity which is prevalent in the Community. The very sovereignty of our parliamentary institutions within the British constitution continues to pose what I would suggest are virtually intractable problems in terms of dealing with the motion before us today.
The use of scarce parliamentary time, jealously fought over by Government and Opposition alike—and itself a reflection of the keenness of the party political battle in the country—frequently gives rise to a situation where the notion of the parliamentary control of legislation and, indeed, the notion of what constitutes parliamentary accountability, mean very different things to different people.
To state the problem at its most obvious, it is very much a matter of judgment, depending upon the position of each individual Member, since, whereas to the committed Back Bencher, accountability means influencing the executive decisions of Government before they are taken, to Ministers, accountability may well mean parliamentary approval of Government action after the event. The two are not necessarily the same, and they reflect the difference between the representative function of the individual Member and the executive function of a Minister of Crown who is also a Member of this House. The distinction goes right to the heart of what we are discussing here today.
By his motion the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) submits that, where the Select Committee has recommended a matter for debate, no Minister shall give his agreement to that proposal in the Council of Ministers until such time as the House has had a chance to debate the topic on a motion relating to that proposal.
The Select Committee, on the other hand, submitted in its first special report of May last year a resolution saying that we should not be so prohibitive as to prevent Ministers from coming to an urgent decision in Brussels provided always that the Minister concerned would at the first opportunity give his reasons to the House for taking such precipitate action. Specifically this dates back to 4th

August 1976 when the Lord President restated the terms of the Government undertaking about the holding of debates in words that were used earlier by the hon. Member for Newham, South.
In particular, the Lord President said that the Minister concerned could go ahead and reach agreement in Brussels provided that he would then come to the House immediately thereafter and give his reasons even if the Select Committee had recommended a document for debate in advance of his going to the EEC. I believe that the Committee came to its conclusion not because it wished to make life easy for the Government but because it realised that it is virtually impossible under our present constitutional arrangements to impose upon the Government of the day a notion of accountability which conflicts with the desire of that Government to do their business in accordance with the wishes of the parliamentary majority that they are able to secure in the Lobbies, and whose Members may sometimes require decisions to be taken in Brussels in advance of parliamentary approval.
If there is a problem with regard to EEC legislation I venture to suggest to the hon. Member for Newham, South that it is because not many Members of Parliament show the same kind of interest in the nuts and bolts of Community legislation as he does. In those circumstances it is hardly fair to ask the Government of the day to do the work of Back Benchers for them. We shall not be able to cope with this problem satisfactorily until EEC debates, and the whole question of how to deal with the EEC legislation, arouse much greater interest and involve a much greater number of Members than has been the case so far.
It may well be argued that the Select Committee recommendation—that the terms of the Government's undertaking about the holding of debates should be embodied in a resolution of the House provided that a satisfactory draft can be agreed upon—still leaves the House in a situation where there is a great deal of power invested in the Executive and, through the Executive, a great deal of authority vested in the institutions of the Community. However, I do not see how in practice a British Government can properly defend or advance the interests


of our country if they are prevented from taking action which they believe vital by virtue of being forced to wait for parliamentary approval. It might well be that this situation will continue to arise when our partners in the Community are on the verge of making an arrangement which could be valuable to our own point of view and when the absolute blocking of a document by the Select Committee would positively prohibit action taking place which could well be to the benefit of our country.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: May I ask my hon. Friend where he finds the reference to "approval" in the motion, which states only,
until such time as this House has debated the topic on a motion relating to that proposal."?

Mr. Arnold: Either way I think the result is the same because we are seeking to prohibit action by a Minister in Brussels until such time as a document recommended by the Select Committee has come to the Floor of the House. My contention is that there may well be circumstances where the real progress of negotiations will indeed require decisions to be taken in advance of parliamentary approval.

Mr. Spearing: Perhaps I was not sufficiently explicit in what I was saying. In the case of the agricultural package and the milk document, to which I referred in my speech, the Select Committee specifically gave up the right to say "Go to the House" and said: "Yes, we understand". But surely it is right that the judgment should be with the Select Committee and not with the Minister?

Mr. Arnold: Of course the Select Committee must do its job properly. Equally, Ministers must do their jobs properly. If Ministers do not do their jobs properly, then the House ought to take much tougher action than it takes at present.
When we had the debate in April there was an exchange between the Chairman of the Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. specifically said that he did not think parliamentary accountability mattered very much because whenever Ministers came back they did not in practice face

the sack. While I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee must do its work of scrutinising properly, it is the case that both sides should do work in an efficient and coherent manner. That is not always the case, but that is a matter of judgment depending on the ability of the individual Members and the Ministers involved.
I can quite see that those Members who remain unreconciled to British membership of the Community should wish to weaken the whole principle of membership since that membership implies constant negotiation between national Governments and not, as has been suggested, national Parliaments.
In France, for example, scrutiny of Community documents is extremely perfunctory by our own standards—we have very much higher standards than operate there—but that is because membership of the Community is viewed as being derived from a treaty obligation and treaty obligations are the sole responsibility of government under the French constitution.
I do not see how in practice the House of Commons can seek to take over the role of government in dealing with EEC legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, for whom I have a great deal of affection, is constantly telling us that he is primarily concerned with the defence of British interests. But those interests are not necessarily served by a procedure which defines accountability in an extremely narrow way.
Lest the House should be in any doubt, I entirely agree with the findings of my colleagues on the Select Committee that, while welcoming the recent improvements in the number of debates held in the House on EEC legislation, and in their timing, the Committee hopes that the situation will not be allowed to slip back if and when pressures from domestic legislation give rise to further problems. Equally, I agree that a trial should be given to a system under which one full day per month of parliamentary time should be given to European legislation and that the arrangements for keeping the House informed about the results of Council meetings should be formalised.
But this is only another way of saying that the methods adopted for dealing with European legislation must inevitably reflect to a large extent the character of


the personal relationship between Members within this House and the constitutional relationship between Government and Parliament.
To sum up, the Select Committee pointed out that suggestions have been made from time to time that the House should pass a resolution embodying the terms of the Government's undertaking about the holding of debates—the main argument being that it is too important a matter to remain in force merely as a result of having been included in a Written Answer to a Question. The Committee concluded that there would be value in a proceeding of this kind, and I concur with my colleagues in that judgment. I hope that the Government will agree that a resolution should be accepted by the House.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for raising this subject, which is of very great interest, not only as it affects EEC matters. It is one example of a general problem, that of the relationship between Parliament and Government in a world that is becoming increasingly more complicated.
That is what is at the heart of the matter. The world is becoming more complicated. There are more things for people concerned with government to think about and talk about. How on earth do they manage it? We have to observe one general principle in this regard. It is not the duty, or within the capacity, of this House to govern the country. The relationship between this House and government is that it is possible for a Government to be created by there being enough people in the House who are prepared to take on the responsibility—as a rule there is no shortage of such people—and there has to be sufficient agreement in the House to sustain some sort of Government. Next, we can criticise that Government and, finally, in the last resort we can sack them, but we should not try, while the Government are in power, to take from them the actual job of governing.
A fair criticism of my hon. Friend's motion is that he goes too far in that direction. He himself gave a metaphor

when he said no one would stand behind someone playing cards and say "You must not play that card at this juncture." Having given us that metaphor, he rejected it, I think on the ground that it was undignified and trivial compared with the vast human issues with which the Community is concerned. I offer him a rather more dignified metaphor. It is that one does not stand beside a surgeon while he is conducting a life and death operation and say "You must not use that instrument at this juncture."
My point is that, having given someone the responsibility of doing certain jobs, we must not be continually breathing down his neck. That is what the passing of this resolution, as it stands, would do. It would compel a Minister to refrain from agreeing to a proposal in the Common Market until a specific procedure of this House had been gone through. This would apply to every major proposal.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Will not my right hon. Friend accept that what we are dealing with in this debate and in the work of the Scrutiny Committee is legislation? It is not governmental action. It is the process of legislation, in which this House necessarily must be involved.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, but it is Government agreement to legislative proposals of the Common Market. The objection to this is that, if a Minister is hampered to that extent, he will be unable to carry out properly the job of negotiation. This is not restricted to the Common Market. It applies to foreign policy generally. If we take a certain action which we know may be unwelcome to certain other Governments, the Government have to consider always how it will affect the sum total of our relations with those Governments. In the conduct of foreign affairs, whether in the European Community or elsewhere, the action is always a continuous process. If a Minister is held up by our saying "You cannot agree to this until the House has gone through a certain procedure", it becomes almost impossible for him to conduct negotiations with foreign powers, whether in the EEC or outside it.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely it is the basis of the existence of the Scrutiny Committee that there should be a certain procedure gone


through before a Minister gives his consent in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Stewart: I was coming to the Scrutiny Committee in a moment. It would be more possible to consider the restriction which is imposed if the House was prepared to give a high priority to going through these procedures. But if the Minister is to be told "You cannot do this until the House has gone through a certain procedure", and the Leader of the House has continually to say "Not next week", we put the Minister in a very difficult position.

Sir J. Eden: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the work of the Scrutiny Committee becomes almost worthless? He seems to be recommending that Ministers should be free to agree to a proposition in the Council of Ministers even though the Scrutiny Committee has recommended the subject for debate by this House.

Mr. Stewart: I shall be coming to the rôle of the Scrutiny Committee in a moment, if right hon. and hon. Members will let me get on with my speech.
If a Minister is told "You cannot agree to something until the House has gone through a certain procedure", and we cannot be sure when the House will be prepared to make time for that, it is an unreasonable restriction on the Minister.
It may be said, therefore, is not the remedy a Scrutiny Committee with a larger membership and with greater powers so that the Minister will not have to wait until we have had time to do something on the Floor of the House—in other words, so that we need wait only until certain procedures are gone through in the Scrutiny Committee? That is one possible answer. I mention that as one possible way out of the dilemma of how to balance the need sometimes for speedy action by Ministers and the ultimate right of criticism by this House.
There are several ways out, in fact. Some people suggest that the way out is for this country to leave the European Community. But I do not believe that that would solve the problem, apart from anything else. If we came out of the Community, that would not mean that we should not have to conduct commercial negotiations and make commercial treaties with other countries for the

enforcement of which some legislative instruments would be necessary. A Minister might find himself engaged in more complicated and elaborate negotiations if we were out than if we remained in the Community. So I do not believe that that is the remedy.
Another remedy would be to try to urge the Community not to pass quite so much legislation. As I ventured to say last Thursday, I think that there is a good deal in this and that Ministers themselves, with their colleagues from the other countries of the Nine, should apply their minds to it. The Commission and the Council of Ministers—and the Council of Ministers ought to be able to do it—should think about what legislation means at home and whether there will be time to consider it properly, before they make all these legislative instruments in the first place. That is another possible remedy.
I have referred already to the possibility of an increase in the powers and membership of the Scrutiny Committee. That might be another answer.
Even if we apply some of these remedies, there will be the problem still of giving the House of Commons sufficient time to exercise any proper criticism—not necessarily control, but criticism—over the conduct of Ministers in matters affecting the European Community. That must mean that if we are to have the proper time for that we have to spend less time on something else.
The public sometimes ask, casually, why the House does not work in the mornings like everyone else, unaware of the large extent to which many right hon. and hon. Members are working in the mornings. I am reminded of Beatrice Webb's comment in 1908, "We shall never get anywhere until we have Ministers prepared to work an eight-hour day". Ministers work considerably more than an eight-hour day nowadays, and Parliament works very long hours, especially those right hon. and hon. Members who devote themselves to its work. So the prospect of increasing the total hours that we work is not on.
What can go—or perhaps I should say what can he squeezed—which is what we have to do? We have this problem of our commercial relations with foreign powers,


especially the EEC, and they should take more of our time than they do. So we have to adjust. Some people hope that if the devolution Bills are passed we shall be freed of much of the business which now occupies us.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South does not agree. I have thought about this, and I think that there is some business of which we should be freed. If my hon. Friend will look back over what we have spent our time on in the past year or two, he will see that there is a good deal which could be taken out of the purview of this House. That is one possibility.
I find it very difficult to suggest any other subject which could be extracted from our business. But it seems to me that the more frequent use of timetable motions on major Bills is now the direction in which this House ought to move. Having in my time taken part in a large number of debates on guillotine motions, both for and against, I think that I know by heart all the arguments which can be advanced both for and against introducing guillotines. I have come to the conclusion that I shall not speak in any such debate in future because the arguments are becoming a bit mechanical and repetitive and also because it is common sense that we should now accept as a general principle that there should be a timetable on a major Bill.
A timetable motion does not mean the unreasonable squeezing of debate. It means removing from the Opposition the temptation to waste time. Without a guillotine, it is a virtue in opposition in hon. Members to waste time. With a guillotine, it is a virtue in all hon. Members to apply their minds to arguing about what really matters in the Bill. We could get rid of the licensed wasting of time which unguillotined major Bills involve. That would give us some time to dispose of in other ways, one of which would be the more diligent scrutiny of our relations with the European Community.
I have been trying to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has put his finger on a real problem but that I do not think that the remedy which he suggests will work and

that there are other possible remedies which the House might consider.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: Other hon. Members have suggested that the motion before us is modest and mild. With those comments I concur, and I find it hard to understand how the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) can say that this motion goes too far. One could not have a more innocuous and mild motion. The motion simply requires that the House should debate the topic on a motion relating to that proposal. It simply requires that what is largely an existing practice should be carried out as a general rule, and that the scrutiny procedure which this House has approved should be translated into reality on all occasions. I find it hard to understand how that can be going too far.
Of course, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the task of the House of Commons or Parliament to govern, but it is our task to try to the best of our endeavours to control government. That is what this debate has been about. It has been about exercising a very modest amount of control over the Executive, whether the Executive be in Whitehall or in Brussels. Generally the discussion has not been about the Common Market as such.
It was only my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) who, I think, implied that the bargaining between national executives was an essential feature of the philosophy of the Community. Many of us have previously described it as a bureaucratic process. My hon. Friend implies that it has to be so and that it is almost impossible to have democratic control and scrutiny over those essentially bureaucratic procedures. Many of us have tried to argue that, and it has been denied. But whoever is right, it must be right, surely, to try to exercise greater control over those processes.
The control that we are talking about is essentially very limited. It is limited to legislative proposals. This is vital. We are not talking generally about major policy arguments. By and large, we are talking about legislative proposals which have already been put to the Scrutiny Committee. This deals to a certain extent with the argument of urgency. If we were


talking about great urgency, I do not think that we would be talking about this creature at all.
We are talking about a proposal which has already proceeded through several stages of its life and has come to the Scrutiny Committee in a draft form. There must be time. It is proposed that the House should debate the motion. If somehow the time scales become compressed, if the Minister has to go to Brussels and negotiate before we have had a debate, it is most likely not the fault of this House, but one has to say that it is the fault of the Leader of the House. The burden is not upon the Minister who has to go and negotiate or who cannot negotiate because there has been no debate. The burden is upon the Leader of the House to find time, to give extra priority to these matters which a Select Committee of the House has already recommended should be debated.
I find the idea put forward by the right hon. Member for Fulham of guillotining debates as a regular part of our life, horrifying. It would give more time to debate other matters, but it would also give the Executive Bills in virtually unamended form, whenever it wished. But that is a different argument, for a different time. It is essential that priority be given to matters recommended for debate by the Select Committee.
We have heard of criticism of the Scrutiny Committee, but it has been clearly shown that that criticism ought to be directed not at the Committee but at the terms of reference of that Committee and at the use that the House makes of the Committee reports once those reports have been made. I am sure that we ought to see those powers strengthened. The proposal that we have before us today is a very modest step in the right direction.
I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us that he accepts that—I should be surprised if he did not—but that we see this only as a trailer to a much broader debate when we consider the proposals that the Government, I hope, will be putting forward before long generally to strengthen our powers over EEC legislation. The Prime Minister has promised us proposals. In his letter

to the General Secretary of the Labour Party he has attached great priority to this matter which, as I understand it—the Prime Minister has told me this—is Government policy. What surprises me is that the Government have not yet put the proposals before us, because they definitely have power to do so.
I hope that the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have an equal determination to bring positive proposals before the House of Commons fairly soon. That would allay some of the anxieties that many of us feel, which have been increased by the introduction of the direct-elections legislation. I hope that this motion is just a taste of what is to come.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on bringing this proposal before us in this way. It allows the opportunity to debate an important matter; even more important, it allows us, if the motion be passed, to put into the procedures of the House a specified and meaningful ruling. Private Members' motions are often criticised as not being a sensible use of our time. But this is a very sensible and useful way of using Private Members' time, and I hope that the motion will be accepted by the House.
I believe that Select Committee powers and terms of reference, both in this case and generally, have to be tightened up and considered much more deeply. It is fashionable to talk about the setting up of Select Committees on almost every subject under the sun, and there may be a case for that. But a Select Committee is only useful if its conclusions are translated back to the Floor of the House. In other words, we should set up a Select Committee only if it is virtually under orders from the House to bring back a meaningful motion to the Floor of the House, and if the Leader of the House is under an injunction from the House to ensure that the motion is debated within a reasonable time.
Thus, motions put to the House by Select Committees would have power and meaning, whereas at the moment those Committees are merely disembodied parts of the House, and their reports, however valuable, are often consigned to a pigeon hole. Let us have Select Committees with genuine powers and ensure that they have to bring back their conclusions to the


House, which must act upon them. That is the procedure which should be followed with the Scrutiny Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) said that he disliked the idea of extending the powers to the point held by the Danish Parliament. But there is no evidence that I know of that constraints upon Danish Ministers hold up negotiating procedures. It is not often that we hear Denmark accused of dragging its feet. More often than not, it is perhaps this country that is so accused. There is no evidence that the Danes find this system too difficult to work.
It may be that this House would not tolerate the Danish system, whereby a Committee virtually mandates the Minister, but we would welcome a system whereby, in certain legislative respects, this Chamber mandated the Minister. Again, it would not be a matter of general policy on which we mandated him. It would be on the basis of legislative proposals that he had already brought to the House. That might limit his negotiating freedom, but that would not necessarily be an unreasonable situation. I think that it would be a feasible and sensible operation, and there is no reason why it should seriously impair the effectiveness of a Minister in the Council of Ministers.
There are, however, some occasions when I would believe that a Minister should be so limited, and I quote one example to emphasise the point. Earlier in the debate, we were told about specific problems of the House in dealing with proposals that were not yet complete, that were still being negotiated and were in a constant state of change. I do not know how we can deal with that problem because, even if we pass this motion, as I am sure we shall, we shall then have a debate on a proposal put to us via the Scrutiny Committee—but then the document changes. In such circumstances, by rights we should have a further debate or a further means of approving or disapproving the proposal.
My example is the question of drivers' hours and the distance limit on heavy vehicles. This case was considered by the Scrutiny Committee in 1976. The Scrutiny Committee recommended it for debate in the House. But on 1st January

next, distance limits are to be imposed and certain vehicles will not be able to be driven more than 450 kilometres without a tachograph, which is a different story. In the Scrutiny Committee, the Minister said:
Although there is provision for exemption from the universally unpopular and frequently unenforced 450 kilometre limit for heavy non rigid vehicles we still hope to see this Article dropped completely.
But it is coming in on 1st January.
Earlier this year, we had a debate when we considered yet another explanatory memorandum from the Minister. Again referring to the distance limit, that memorandum said:
It should be abolished unconditionally".
In a later memorandum, we had another brief reference but were told that that did not really apply to the United Kingdom. In the debate—which was the sort of debate we are talking about—the Minister gave us a further answer. He said:
There is a general recognition of the need for a change in Regulation No. 543, which is not as wide or as fundamental as that suggested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. This particularly relates to the 450-kilometre rule that my hon. Friend pointed out…"[Official Report, 4th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 1069.]
There was statement after statement that that particular feature was likely to disappear. Yet, without further debate, this vitally important restriction is to come into effect on 1st January.
It was my impression that most nations in the Community had virtually accepted that the restriction was to go. The Minister had freedom to negotiate, which is what we have been told he needs. Might he not have been in a stronger bargaining position had he not been able to give away that concession? His position might not have been weakened but strengthened.
We need to tighten up these procedures, and I look forward to the Government's proposals to strengthen control even more. It is not an argument about the Common Market as such, but about control over the Executive, wherever it may be, by this democratic Assembly. In this modest motion, we ask only to debate these matters. It is a modest extension of control by this House, but even then, as I have demonstrated by the serious and worrying example that I quoted, that does


not mean that this House would have the effective power which it should have and can have without calling into question our membership or the rules of the Community. I believe that this debate is just a trailer to a wider debate on how we continue to exercise democratic control.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: Anyone who has spoken regularly in these debates must have the feeling that he is playing fairground games in which, however often the target is knocked over, it springs up again. One of the most resilient arguments in this context, no matter how often it is knocked down in this Chamber or in leading articles in the Press, is the notion that, in the important business of democratising the EEC, this House has no part to play and that the only way to make progress is by a directly-elected Assembly.
This might be true if one postulates the Community as already operating supra-national authority, overriding national Governments and making steady progress towards European union. The argument might then follow. But if one looks at the constitutional structure of the Community as it is, and contemplates the Europe of alliances which the Labour Party is committed to seeking, one finds, if one is interested in democratising the Community, that the more direct, simpler and more effective means lies directly to hand—by using the procedures of this House to strengthen our control over Ministers.
The major decisions in the Community are taken by the Council of Ministers. Each Minister has a veto, and I hope that it remains Government policy to maintain that veto. The Minister is there precisely because he is a Minister. He is responsible to this House. As soon as he ceases to be a Minister or to command the confidence of the House, he is no longer a member of the Council of Ministers.
There is an obvious way to strengthen the chain of control which already exists, to make sure that Ministers know in advance what they are supposed to do, in accordance with the will of the House, when they go to Brussels and to ensure that they are brought to account if by mischance they fail to carry out their

task. This course would have considerable advantages. It is the course proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) in his motion. The major advantage is that it would represent, for this House, a means of making progress which was true to its traditions and principles. It would represent a determined effort to bring the Executive back within the control of the House of Commons, even though it had flown to Brussels. Equally, it would mean that the House of Commons was again relevant to the legislative process, which, in EEC matters, it clearly is not at the moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) pointed out that, as well as legislating, Ministers negotiate when they go to Brussels. Our concern is with the legislative aspects of that process. If we are to do our job properly in deciding what is law in this country we must make ourselves relevant to that process. I believe that my right hon. Friend was slightly mistaken in suggesting that if we accepted the motion we would, by that step alone, be undertaking a considerable extra burden. As has been made clear, the time is already made available for these debates. All that we are asking is that they should be made more effective.
A further advantage of the course proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is that it is one which is entirely within our competence to pursue. It requires no consent from our EEC colleagues and no amendment of the Treaty of Rome. It is entirely consistent with that treaty. It is argued that if we were to adopt the proposed procedure we would be setting up obstacles and slowing down the process of decision-making in Brussels. We can find a complete answer to that when we consider how the Danes manage affairs. They operate a more rigid and circumscribed system than is proposed here.
There is no evidence that the Danes have held up the decision-making process in Brussels very much. Even if there were to be such delay and such obstacles, this is surely the price to be paid for some element of democratic control over what is the law and over the taxes paid in this country. If it requires a little delay and inconvenience here and there


for the Executive, that is something which we should accept.
It may also be that this procedure, if accepted, will have a useful prophylactic effect so that Ministers and their civil servants in Whitehall and Brussels, knowing that they will have to get more measures through the House in the sense that they will have to be debated and given a seal of approval, will be a little less prepared to bring forward some of the nonsense with which we are currently faced. Ministers might learn to use this procedure in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). They may learn to use it as a negotiating weapon to strengthen rather than weaken their position.
This debate is not one which divides party from party or Marketeer from anti-Marketeer. It concerns a House of Commons matter. The view to be found in the motion is broadly supported in principle by the Scrutiny Committee and the Select Committee on Procedure which reported a year or two ago. It virtually represents the undertaking which Ministers have already given. It is entirely supported by the logic of the Prime Minister's letter to the National Executive Committee. In these circumstances I see no reason for the Government to oppose the motion even if, as I hope is the case, they have better and more far reaching proposals to bring forward in due course.

6.19 p.m.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) is right to remind us that this debate concerns a House of Commons matter. It is in that spirit that I shall endeavour to reply from the Opposition Front Bench. The tributes have already been paid to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). His decision was well worth while and has given rise to a most interesting, valuable and sometimes entertaining debate.
The hon. Member for Newham, South started by frankly pointing out to us that national parliaments have no rights under the treaties. One might add that even the European Assembly is only consultative and advisory. But surely no one can deprive that Assembly or any national Parliament, or this House, of the opportunity of influencing, persuading, encouraging,

even threatening Ministers. It is the Ministers who can, subject to our pressure, influence their colleagues in the Council of Ministers and through them the Commission. It is worth noting that the veto is not without some value in the "last resort".
I find it strange that it is so often said by people who should know better that our parliamentary procedures are out of date, inflexible and so on. That is not true. The fallacy has been exploded by the way in which we, with the help of the Leader of the House, have been able continuously to evolve new procedures enabling us to survey and influence quite powerfully the legislation of the Commission and the decisions of the Council of Ministers.
I pay tribute to what the right hon. Gentleman has done. I have often criticised him in other contexts. The right hon. Gentleman summed it up quite aptly when, giving his oral evidence to the Scrutiny Committee on 5th April, he said:
I believe that only the British House of Commons could make an edible dish out of chalk and cheese…".
I could not put it better.
I endorse the tribute the right hon. Gentleman paid to the work of the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who made such an interesting and challenging contribution today. My right hon. Friend presented a memorandum to the Select Committee on Procedure, the Committee of which the hon. Member for Newham, South and I are members—the "everlasting" one, not the sessional one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West gave evidence to us on 18th July.
His memorandum is worthy of everyone's attention. Some references have been made to it today. I hope that it will be studied carefully in Brussels. In it my right hon. Friend thoroughly reviewed present methods of scrutiny and debate and suggested various improvements, each one of them greatly needed. I hope that the Government and the House will broadly accept them.
Now that we have had several years' experience of membership of the EEC and the working of their institutions I suggest that the time has come for us


to let them know, diplomatically, of course, of ways in which they could improve their procedures and so enable us as a House of Commons, and no doubt other national parliaments too, to facilitate our work of liaison, scrutiny and influence. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made the positive suggestion that, instead of getting about 300 documents a week, we might be rationed to 10. I do not know whether we could go as far as that, but if it were to happen, it might cause some joy for the officials concerned in Brussels, of whom there are many, who could go home at lunch time and not come back.
In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the memorandum to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West referred he pointed out two defects in Community procedures. First, he referred to the habit in Brussels of rushing through some legislation so that sometimes only a week elapses between the submission of a proposal by the Commission to the Council of Ministers and the Council's approval of it. That process, in effect, bypasses our own scrutiny procedure. It does not happen very often, but it can have a bad effect when it does.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that the opposite sometimes happens and that there are interminable delays when documents are frequently amended by confidential working groups within the ambit of the Council of Ministers. I suggest that the Government should draw the attention of the Commission to those two defects.
I suggest that harmonisation is being overdone. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) complained about this, and I join with him and other hon. Members who have pointed out some of the ridiculous things that are happening. Harmonisation is good when it brings us all up to the standard of the best, like the recent directive on bird conservation, which was debated in the House on a Friday and which is based on United Kingdom legislation. In that way we have been able to influence Europe, and I hope that there will be increasing opportunities for Europe to learn from our better practices, but there is no point in the Com-

mission being bureaucratically overzealous with harmonisation.
I strongly suspect that there is an assumption in Brussels that, if one or two countries have highly developed and restrictive, mandatory laws on a subject, those laws should be applied throughout the Community, whereas it might be very much better if there were more simple measures or, better still, no laws at all. There is much too much legislation here and in all European countries. There is a case for reasonabe restraint on harmonisation.
We have been given some remarkable examples of over-zealous attempts at it and I, too, have come across one or two. For example, there is a draft directive on the approximation of laws relating to drivers' seats on wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. What can be the purpose of standardisation on that subject? Are we to have exactly the same seating arrangements? It is too absurd.
There is also a draft directive on the harmonisation of provisions laid down in respect of the standard exchange of goods exported for repair. How will it be enforced by the various European countries? I have also been told that there is a move to harmonise doorstep selling, which is practised only in Germany and in this country. I do not see why other European countries should be saddled with laws on that subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded me of the proposal for approximation of laws relating to hot-water meters to guarantee their free movement. No one is trying to stop the free movement of hot-water meters. If we are to legislate on that, why not legislate for the free movement of everything under the sun? It does not seem to be sensible. But the most remarkable one of all was the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation EEC 316/68 fixing the quality standards of fresh-cut flowers and fresh ornamental foliage. Tell that to the barrow boys and flower girls! No sub-standard orchids for Miss Blandish!
I am a keen European and I was quite prepared for a good deal of this kind of nonsense, but I hoped that our entry into the EEC would diminish it somewhat. I still hope that it will diminish. Last week the Chairman of the Commission blamed


Whitehall for being bureaucratic, as if he were a snow-white innocent in the matter of bureaucracy before he became chairman and afterwards. But the Foreign Secretary should ask him to look at the harmonisation practices of the Commission to see whether he can make them less bureaucratic.
I want to mention particularly the question that has loomed large in our discussions, that of debates in the House. As I said in tribute to the Leader of the House, the position has improved steadily, but there is need for still more improvement, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree. We especially need debates in good time, time enough to influence the ultimate decisions. We also need them earlier in the day whenever possible.
I suggest five specific improvements. They are already in my right hon. Friend's memorandum to which I have referred, so the Leader of the House is not unfamiliar with them. It is important that we should have the following. First, bearing in mind that we already have six days a year on the Floor of the House devoted to EEC matters and that the Scrutiny Committee suggested one a month, I think that the six should be increased to eight.
Secondly, the Community budget should always have a whole day to itself, even though it deals to a great extent with agriculture. Thirdly, when an EEC matter overlaps major United Kingdom policy, the two should be debated together. I give as an example energy, which is of great concern to the EEC and is the subject of a great policy formation. It is also of immense concern to us, and there is no reason why we should not have our energy debate and the EEC energy debate on the same day. There should also be a full day's debate of the price review, combined with a debate on United Kingdom agriculture.
Fourthly, there should be more debates on consultative documents well before legislation has been drafted by the Commission. We have profited from such debates in our own affairs, and that suggestion could be helpful. Fifthly, but not

least, debates should not start late at night on anything of real substance.
I now come to the motion. We fully agree with its spirit, but there are some snags about the strict wording. In the first line the hon. Member for Newham, South refers to
greater Parliamentary control of legislation".
I hope that I am not being legalistic when I remind him of what he himself said, that control by national Parliaments of EEC legislation is not strictly within the Treaty of Rome, so one would find difficulty about the word "control". But if the hon. Gentleman means "influence", which is what I mean, there is no problem.
There is also no problem about
full accountability by Her Majesty's Ministers for their actions
in the Council of Ministers. Indeed, we have succeeded in getting our Ministers to answer more regularly, and sometimes more fully, on EEC affairs than we require them to do on some of our domestic affairs. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, I have no complaint to make.
I come now to the burning question of the word "debated". When I first thought about this proposition, I thought that it was good. One should try to go along with it. We on this side of the House wish that it were invariably possible to debate both legislation by the Commission and decisions by the Council of Ministers before finality is reached. But there are genuine practical difficulties about tying Ministers' hands in the way suggested in the motion. For example, we have the long recess, which this year lasted for three months. I am delighted that it did. It enabled us to do all kinds of useful things without having to come here.
There are other circumstances. For example a Government, perhaps even a Conservative Government, might find that there was an urgent EEC matter to debate but the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House was in progress. There might also be an emergency debate on an important foreign topic. To require that the debate on the EEC matter should take place within four days might be unreasonable.

Mr. Jay: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many EEC draft directives and draft regulations have been going round and round the bureaucratic process for months, and in some cases years, and that in almost all cases a week or two would make little difference?

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. What I am saying applies only to the exceptional case where something has not been going round for years, to the matter which is really urgent and important. It would be unreasonable to insist that it should be held up indefinitely when Parliament was not sitting, for example. If it were urgent, the four operative days might include a Friday which had already been pre-empted for Private Members' Business. The imagination does not need to run far to see that to tie the Government down as closely as the motion intends would not be reasonable in all cases.
Let us take comfort in the fact that the written undertaking given by the Leader of the House on 4th August of last year goes a long way. It contains safeguards to protect Ministers against the position that I have tried to describe. As the Scrutiny Committee said:
The Government have continued to stick to the letter of this undertaking".
I am prepared to go further and say that they appear to have stuck to its spirit as well. Indeed, I think that in the whole matter of influencing EEC legislation, although there is still some way to go, we are getting nearer to the stage of "having our cake and eating it". I do not think that by making rigid rules, which would logically have to be followed by an amendment of Standing Orders, we are likely to improve the position to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Sir D. Renton: I cannot give way, because I promised the Leader of the House that I would sit down at 6.40 p.m., and I have one more minute to go.
In conclusion, may I quickly say that it is satisfactory to note that on this vital topic there is broad agreement between Government and Opposition, between pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers. We all want to see our procedures continue to develop so that, whatever our view of the Community, we may truly claim that

in our pooling of sovereignty with others we not only gained a stake in Europe, but established in the House of Commons effective ways of influencing what happens there.

6.40 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Naturally, I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for the way in which he spoke and for his acknowledgment that the Government have sought to meet the representations which have come from all parts of the House asking that we try to improve the way we deal with EEC matters. That does not mean, of course, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I are to be taken as saying that we think that the present procedures are fully satisfactory. I certainly do not think that they are, and I believe that we must make a fresh effort to ensure that they are made so. However, as I said, I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what he said.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse me, especially since he was in such an amiable mood, if I do not reply to all his detailed questions about extra time for various debates. It is true that those suggestions have been made before, but I think that if he added up all the extra parliamentary time which would have to be afforded to meet his full request, the total would be quite considerable and it would raise all the questions which, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides recognise. However, I entirely agree that we must make a fresh approach to the matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said at the outset that this was a House of Commons matter. Sometimes when that is said it is construed as meaning that the matter is of interest only to Members of the House. I am sure that we all agree that this is quite different from that. It is a matter which touches the power of the House of Commons itself, touching it at a series of very sensitive points, and in that sense it touches also on the representation of the people as a whole. I believe that it is of major importance that we make a fresh effort to see whether we can establish a better arrangement and a better accord


between the procedures of the House and the procedures of the Common Market.
That is not an easy objective to achieve, since those procedures derive from different sources, different origins and different incompatibilities. It is not, therefore, easy to achieve, but we must make a fresh effort to do so. That was the meaning of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, the letter which has been referred to often in the debate. That was a major initiative taken by the Prime Minister, and, as a result of it, fresh discussions are taking place within the Labour Party as well as within the Government. The Government are conducting a fresh examination of all these procedures, and I hope that it will not be too long before we can put to the House proposals by which we may make a fresh approach to the matter.
That brings me at once to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), since he asked for a specific undertaking that if there are to be fresh procedures the matter should be discussed with the Scrutiny Committee. That is a most reasonable request. In any case, it would be an absurdity for the Government to embark upon a new method, and a new relationship between the Scrutiny Committee, the House of Commons and the EEC itself, without taking into account the experience of the Scrutiny Committee and without giving that Committee the opportunity to comment on any proposals that the Government might make. I give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking, therefore, and, in so doing, I join with other hon. Members who have seen the work of the Scrutiny Committee and commended it. We are most grateful, as the House and the country must be grateful, for the way in which that Committee has dealt with these matters. It is not an example of how one can deal with the whole problem—I do not believe that we have dealt with the whole problem—but it is an example of how the House of Commons can adapt itself to deal with extremely awkward problems. As I have said, I agree with all those who say that we must go much further.
Whether we should go fully in the manner of the Danish system I would not

say now. That is part of the examination which the Government are undertaking. We shall give the most detailed examination to the Danish system to see, if we do not adopt it fully, how much of that system could be adapted to suit our own methods and our own interests. That is one of the aspects of the matter which will be discussed. I do not exclude moving much further in that direction than we have so far gone, but there are some problems.
I think that there are special problems relating to this House. I say this not because of any prejudice on my part against Select Committees, although I readily acknowledge that I have some prejudice against them; but what I insist upon in regard to Select Committees is that, whatever happens in that field, and whatever powers they are given—it may be that a fully established Select Committee is the best way to proceed—it is the relationship between the Select Committee and the House of Commons that remains the essential matter, and access to the House on the part of individual Members, whether members of the Select Committee or not, is one of the central problems. Although this problem may not always arise in other Parliaments, it can never be escaped in this. It is for that reason that this has been almost the only suggestion approved by the Scrutiny Committee which I have resisted, namely, the suggestion that there should be substantive motions in the Select Committee. I believe that that would injure the relationship with the House, and that was why I opposed that as the way in which we should proceed.
However, as I say, I believe that we must have a fuller approach to the matter. We should examine it afresh as a whole. That is what the Government are doing, and this debate will be fully taken into account in any decision about proposals which we should make to the House.
I hope, therefore—I shall explain the matter more fully in a moment—that the House will allow us to take this motion away now and incorporate consideration of it, or a variation of it, in our proposals. I may say something further in a moment or two which, I hope, will carry the matter even further and assist my hon. Friends even more on their view


of the matter. However, I wish first to comment on how the implications of the motion have worked so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to my statement of 4th August 1976 when, as he believed, I had taken action which eroded the previous pledge which had been given. He has made that criticism before, and I do not complain at that since I think that it is true. I think that anyone who compares what I said in my statement with what had been said in some of the previous statements would say that there is some erosion. I have never sought to conceal that fact, and I do not seek to conceal it now. I do not take the view that we must stand for ever on that declaration of 4th August 1976. It was not written in tablets of stone—certainly, it was not dictated by Moses, if he was in charge of the operation—though it was not exactly written in water. At any rate, it might be altered.
I wish to show what has happened under the provisions which we made. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire was good enough to say that we had carried out our undertaking not only in the letter but in the spirit. I think that that is true. It is certainly the way in which the Government and I myself have sought to carry it out. I wish now to give the House some figures to show what has occurred in this respect. They partly justify not the suspicions—I do not say that—but perhaps the anxieties of some of my hon. Friends, since the figures will indicate that we have not had a complete coverage on every point, but I believe that they show that in the main we have carried out what we promised.
My hon. Friend's motion asks for an absolute ban on any agreement in Brussels on any of these matters till there has been a debate in the House on the subject, whereas what my statement of 4th August did was to allow one loophole, a loophole whereby, even though the Scrutiny Committee asked that a debate should take place beforehand, a Minister might in certain extreme circumstances be able to make an agreement in Brussels so long as—this is what I said on 4th August—he came back to the House as soon as possible to give an explanation and an indication of why he did it.
What I asked for, amongst other things, was an opportunity to try to discover how this would work over this period, and I give the House the figures. Some can use them on one side of the argument to prove how fully we have carried out the obligation, whilst others might use them to ask "What about these important exceptions?". Nevertheless, I give the figures because the House is entitled to know the facts.
As far as I can discover, in the last Session there was one proposal dealing with animal health, and three or four dealing with fisheries, on which the Ministers concerned decided to take the action of making an agreement in Brussels and then coming to the House and giving an explanation of what they had done. They took advantage of a loophole in the statement that I made on 4th August, but those cases must be set in the context of more than 100 documents that were debated in the House last Session. Therefore, the undertaking that was given was overwhelmingly carried out, although it might be argued that there were two or three important exceptions. I can understand that that might be the case, because it is the very pressure of wishing to reach an agreement at some stage that might lead to that happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South is proposing that the loophole should be closed altogether, but not in the sense of having parliamentary approval. In that connection the motion is modest, and in that sense I grant what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), My hon. Friend is not even asking that absolute approval shall be given by the House, although in my opinion that is a matter that we should consider. In fact, it is one of the issues that should be examined by the Government when we are looking into this matter, and by the House when we return to it afresh. It was one of the major questions that was discussed by the Committee that examined our relationship to European legislation soon after we were in the Common Market, and it was one of the recommendations that we examined then. I believe that that recommendation should be examined afresh: that it should be not only a question of discussion, but possibly of approval, too.
That would carry the matter considerably further. I do not give an undertaking that that is the conclusion that we shall reach, but I think that we should see whether that is a possibility, because what the House wants—and this has emerged even more clearly in this debate than ever before—is a full examination of parliamentary control over EEC legislation. We want to see whether there is a better way of doing it, and I believe that we should be prepared to move in that direction.
I am not slamming any door on what my hon. Friends say. I promise them that in our consideration of all of these matters we shall take account of this motion and see whether we can come back to the House with a recommendation that can go some way towards meeting what they are saying. I agree with my hon. Friends that, in the end, it is highly desirable that this matter should be incorporated in a resolution of the House rather than in a ministerial declaration, Therefore, what I am proposing is that we should take into account a resolution of the House and not solely the question of a ministerial declaration, although, as I have indicated, the pledge about ministerial declarations has been openly and honestly carried out.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a loophole via the Scrutiny Committee which, like the Privy Council, sometimes meets during a recess? My right hon. Friend has undertaken to put the Government's proposals in motion form. What timetable has he in mind?

Mr. Foot: I accept that my hon. Friend does not want to fail to press his motion—as he is entitled to do—unless he can see some progress being made. I understand that. We have carried out the previous undertaking, and I believe that we have thereby assisted in establishing parliamentary control over some of these matters. I want to see that carried further, and this is only one item of it. I should like to see the reaction to this proposal incorporated in some form or another in the general, fresh proposals for establishing better parliamentary control. That touches on some of the earlier matters to which I referred, such as the future

powers and terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committee, or whether it is to be altered in a more general form. It would be sensible to incorporate all these matters in one general proposition, because that would be more likely to satisfy the House as a whole, and more likely to achieve all the results that we want.
If we find that that examination is taking much longer than at the moment it appears it will, I shall consider bringing this motion back to the House in some form so that the House can debate the matter afresh before the rest of the discussions take place. I give that undertaking. I do not think that I can fix an absolute timetable to it but, as I said at the beginning, as a result of the Prime Minister's statement—

Mrs. Lena Jeger: My right hon. Friend suggested that the motion in some form or other might come back to the House. He must know that this motion is before us today because of our hon. Friend's luck in the Ballot. How can anyone give an undertaking that a similar motion will come back to the House, unless it is brought in by the Government?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is right. I was not suggesting—and if I had been I do not think I should have got away with it—that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South must win another Ballot—although he is good at winning them. I am suggesting, and I believe that this is a more sensible way of proceeding, that the whole question of better parliamentary control over EEC matters should be considered. That is what I should like to see us do. That would incorporate the other matters to which I have been referring. If we find that such an examination is taking so long that my hon. Friends begin to say that the procedure is being used as a device to avoid considering this kind of motion, we shall have to bring the matter back to the House. That would be done by the Government, and not by individual Members.

Mr. Jay: Can my right hon. Friend say that these proposals will be brought back before the end of this Session?

Mr. Fott: I hope very much that all the proposals that we have for better parliamentary control will be brought forward in this Session,


but I give the undertaking that if that is not possible the House will have an opportunity of deciding this matter if we have not been able to reach agreement on the more general question.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North said that one of the problems with which we are perpetually involved in all these matters is that the process of dealing with the EEC is one partly of negotiation and partly of legislation, that there is always a mixture of the two, and that nobody knows exactly what form of procedure it is that we are being asked to approve. It is extremely difficult to mix legislation and negotiation, and it is because of that difficulty, and because of that mixture, that we get these problems. I have already said that it is a remarkable achievement of the House that we have been able to manage this control so far, although I know that there are still many deficiences.
One of the major deficiences concerns the question of time. It is easy for hon. Members to say "Why do you not provide more time?"—for this that or the other. I do not believe the House will ever secure the situation where we shall have as extensive debates as we should on the mass of legislation flowing from the EEC, or on the long series of negotiations that are taking place there. If the House of Commons were to demand that it should give adequate time to all these matters, precious little time would be left—

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FISHERIES)

7.0 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2147/77, R/2428/77, R/2429/77, R/2434/77, R/2521/77 and R/2642/77 on Fisheries.
A week today, on 5th December, the Fisheries Council will be considering, once again, whether it is possible to reach agreement on a common fisheries policy, or whether, once again, we shall have to resign ourselves to that series of ad hoc measures to which we have become accustomed in Brussels and which are no substitute for a real lasting policy. It is against this background that we in this House are considering six draft regulations prepared by the EEC Commission—regulations on two basic questions—division of resources and conservation of stocks.
The draft regulation which purports to show us how to divide up the fishing resources of the Community is R2434. Its basic premise is that catches should be divided in the same proportions as were provided for in the North East Atlantic Fisheries Convention—NEAFC —in the period before 200-mile limits. Where there was no provision in NEAFC, division would be according to actual catch levels in the past. This solution has major difficulties. One is that some countries, such as the United Kingdom, have lost their traditional fishing grounds in the waters of third countries and therefore lose disproportionately by a straightforward application of the NEAFC key.
The Commission now recognises that this is a real problem and we have been told that it is prepared in principle to amend its proposals to take account of these losses. But even if the proposals are amended in this way, they will not meet the needs of the United Kingdom. For example, they take no account of the fact that 60 per cent. of the fish stocks within the waters of the member States are in United Kingdom waters.
The Commission's proposal departs from the NEAFC key in order to provide preferential treatment for Ireland and "North Britain", because they are


specially mentioned in the Hague declaration. For the Republic it has suggested a higher allocation—two-thirds above the catch level of 1975—which is to be taken partly from the waters of the United Kingdom. Indeed, so open-handed is the Commission that it even offers the Republic an allocation from the waters of the Isle of Man—waters which are, as it happens, excluded from the common fisheries policy.
Having settled the Irish allocation to its own satisfaction, the Commission has applied its mind to the requirements of the United Kingdom. The regulation purports to give a preference to "North Britain", by which we are to infer the inclusion of certain waters off Scotland and Northern Ireland. In practice, the proposal would only provide for preference to take effect if the total allowable catch is lower than in 1976. If that happens, the preference for North Britain is provided at the expense of the rest of the Community—including, unfortunately, the south part of our island.
For us South Britons—as I suppose we must now learn to call ourselves—this would mean an additional blow to our fishing industry. Just to allow the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) fully to appreciate and savour the effect, I have to tell the House that the regulation is not as clear in its wording as one would wish. South Britons may include some Scots as well.
So there we have the Commission's suggestions for dealing with the division of resources. The House may not be altogether surprised to learn that these suggestions are regarded by Her Majesty's Government as totally, utterly and irrevocably unacceptable.
Where we do agree with the Commission is that, however the stocks may be divided, there must be sufficient fish left to divide, and the draft Regulations 2147 and 2429 are the Commission's proposals for an EEC conservation policy.
The first of these, R/2147, is not of great importance. It would consolidate a number of regulations made earlier in the year following agreements reached in the Council which expire at the end of the year.
The second, R/2429, is important since it would apparently be the basis of the Community's definitive policy on non-quota conservation measures. Its proposals are based closely upon the agreed recommendations of NEAFC, which were valuable so far as they went, but which were in practice too often ignored. Even where they were observed, they consisted of that minimum part of the international scientific advice which all 16 member countries—not all of them very ardent conservationists—could agree to adopt.
Among our main criticisms of R/2429 is that the percentage of whitefish by-catch which could be taken in the industrial fisheries is too high; that there would be a lack of adequate control on the carrying of small-mesh nets on voyages during which white fishing was carried out; that more control over beam trawling is needed than merely a power and tonnage limit within coastal waters on the east side of the North Sea; and that the draft would continue a whole series of relaxations of conservation rules in the Skaggerak and Kattegat.
There are, in addition, two proposals in the draft which do not come from NEAFC. These are to raise the standard white-fish mesh in the North Sea from 70 mm to 90 mm and to require a mesh of 70 mm when fishing for nephrops—which, in plain English, are prawns. These proposals could bring about a real improvement in the white-fish stocks and deserve very serious consideration.
The proposal for a 90 mm white-fish mesh cannot stand alone. If we ask fishermen to use larger meshes if they fish for cod or haddock or whiting, we ask them to accept a loss of catch for the time being. We cannot do that without also doing something about the tremendous catch of small white fish taken in the course of industrial fishing in the North Sea. Overall, R/2429 is not satisfactory and Her Majesty's Government will press for a stronger and more effective set of measures than it contains.

Mr. Hamish Watt: Those proposals do not take account of the fact that a whiting could never be taken by a 90mm. mesh net. The whiting is of such a shape that, even if left to total maturity, it would never be caught by such a net. Although cod and haddock could be caught by these nets, the whiting


could not be. Does this not mean that the men who fish for whiting would be out of a job? Surely if that is the meaning of these regulations, they could not be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Silkin: I know the views of the fishing industry, and to a great degree they coincide with what the hon. Gentleman said. Nevertheless, we need to examine seriously any tougher conservation measure if only because this bag of conservation measures does not go far enough. I am not saying that we should agree to this, but I have said that we shall examine it.
It was because of the EEC's failure to act on this point that Her Majesty's Government originally introduced unilaterally a "Norway pout box" to prohibit the type of fishing causing most damage. This was adopted subsequently as an EEC measure and EEC draft R/2521 proposed its continuation after 31st October. But hon. Members need not bother to study the text since the Council did not agree to it.
This is the significant point. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has calculated that if Norway pout fishing could be brought to an end in the North Sea, the annual catch of haddock and whiting could be increased by about 200,000 tonnes, which would be some 75 per cent. greater than the present recommended total allowable catches for those two species and which would go a long way to offset the fish lost in third country waters.
But the existing pout box, the one which R/2521 proposed to continue, affects only about one quarter of the pout fishery. It represents a fairly modest first step. But, nevertheless, the Council States did not agree to its continuation, even though Denmark was the only country that would not approve this action in NEAFC two years ago.
The Government therefore reimposed the box as a unilateral measure. There could be no clearer demonstration of the need for a coastal State to retain powers, even within a definitive revised CFP, to protect the stocks within the waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Of course, the Government will always support conservation measures on an EEC-wide basis. But the clear lesson of the past year is that it is very difficult

indeed to secure the agreement of all member States on measures which we regard as absolutely essential even if they are fully supported by scientific evidence.
Document R/2642 provides a minor derogation from the herring ban for some small French vessels working close to the French channel coast. This has been agreed in the Council, and it has naturally led some British fishermen, particularly in Northern Ireland, the Western Isles, East Anglia and Sussex, to point out that they have exactly the same problems on our side of the water. The Council has agreed that a study be made of whether a more general derogation for the coastal fisherman might be possible without damage to the herring stocks.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is that prospect limited to 1978, or is it something that will be proceeded with at once so that, if possible, the current season can benefit?

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the study will cover much more than merely the fortnight that will be left after the Fisheries Council meeting in December. I have not yet seen the proposals, but the probability is that they will be concerned with the problem well into the future.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Was there any reason for the right hon. Gentleman's exclusion of Kent in the list of places he mentioned? He referred to Sussex and the same problems apply in Kent.

Mr. Silkin: Kent is the last county that I should wish to exclude: I live in it. However, I could have gone on and on and included places such as Mevagissey. I was talking about the areas where there are major interests and where major representations have been made to the Government.
If all concerned are willing to think constructively rather than to keep looking back and to demand to the letter everything that was prejudiced at the time of the Treaty of Accession, there exists the basis for a settlement which, while recognising the needs of the United Kingdom, could be of benefit to the EEC as a whole. For the extension of United Kingdom legal jurisdiction to the fisheries within 200 miles brings with it an economic asset which is among the richest of its kind in the world. The withdrawal of


third country vessels, particularly those of the USSR, has increased the available stock to the benefit of the whole Community, for it is very largely the stocks within British waters that have enabled not only British vessels but those of France and Germany to continue to fish off Norway and the Faroes.
Accordingly, the EEC must be prepared to take into account the contribution made by the resources within United Kingdom waters and the losses suffered by United Kingdom fishermen in the waters of third countries. We regard that as a principle that applies not only to us, but to the other members of the Community.
All practical considerations lead us to require that belt of up to 50 miles that we have demanded. Apart from our own national rights and needs, it is clearly common sense that the fisheries of a coastal State should be concentrated in the waters nearest its coast. Every consideration, whether it be fishing, conservation, energy saving, enforcement, or working conditions for the fishermen themselves, leads to the same conclusion. Again, common sense demands that, if the Community does not apply the conservation measures that the scientists deem essential, those measures must continue to be applied, if necessary unilaterally, but without discrimination, by the coastal State.
We have never shut our eyes to any alternative that may be proposed, whether by the Commission, the presidency, or the Council itself. But such an alternative must safeguard our position. It was in that spirit that we suggested a possible alternative of our own. We shall see next week to what extent our own constructive approach has been met by others.
I hope that our discussion next week in the Council will be fruitful. The Government remain ready to act to conserve the fish stocks should that prove necessary.
Let nobody be under any illusions: the mandate I take to Brussels is a national one, representing as it does the views of everybody connected with fishing and every shade of political opinion in our country. It is to that mandate

that our colleagues in Europe must now address themselves.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the Minister for bringing us up to date with the Government's attitude to the fishery problems that confront the Community.
I do not make this next point as a ritual. It is right to acknowledge again the foresight and wisdom of the Scrutiny Committee in referring these matters to the House. This is the first time for some months that we have had the opportunity of discussing fishing. There have been one or two debates in Committee, but it is important that these matters are brought to the Floor of the House.
I was interested to read the speech that the Minister made to the Council of Ministers' meeting on 24th October when he said:
What may not be so clearly recognised is the unanimity of agreement within my country on the importance of developing, with the minimum of further delay, a Community fisheries policy that takes proper account of the changes which the general move to 200-mile fishery limits has made to the conditions prevailing at the time when the original Members of the Community devised the outlines of the embryo of a common fisheries policy.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the debates that we have from time to time strengthen his negotiating hand in Brussels and that the Opposition have consistently supported his welcome assertion that he intends to be resolute and to get a solution within the Community that will ensure that the ultimately-reorganised policy will be fair to the United Kingdom fishing industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman also feels that the recent meeting in Dublin of fishing interests has brought together the British and Irish points of view and that this unanimity will strengthen his hand and that of the Irish Minister at the meeting in Brussels next week.
The six proposals that we are considering do not go far towards a new common fisheries policy. As the Minister rightly said—and he received what I judged to be the unanimous approval of the House when he said it—there is still a very long way to go over these proposals. They only scratch the conservation problem and in some sectors they do not even make a scratch detectable by the human eye.
The background of the proposals is almost entirely opposed to conservation. The need for better conservation of stocks has become far more apparent and is a subject that we have discussed much more frequently in the House as our fishing fleets have been forced more and more back into our own waters. As a result of restrictions in Icelandic, Russian, Norwegian and Faroese waters, the problem of conservation has become infinitely more acute, and therefore the House has been devoting much more time to thinking about it.
At a first glance I suppose that the conservation of the Community's fish stocks would seem to be a simple and obvious operation. Unfortunately, it is becoming extremely difficult. At the moment it is clear that the Community's fishing pond yields about 3 million tons of fish. Scientists seem to agree—and I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this—that with proper conservation policies that yield could rise to 5 million tons.
That would mean sufficient fish for our own consumption and a surplus that we could arrange either to export or to use in swap arrangements in order to make sure that we obtain adequate supplies of fish for our own needs from waters which at the moment are banned to us. Basically, if all things were perfect, no position could provide us with greater strength. It would mean that if we were so to arrange stocks of fish in the Community pond—

Mr. Powell: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman in mid-sentence, but I hope that he will accept a suggestion about the expression "Community pond". My suggestion is that it is an inappropriate and misleading term to apply to waters which extend 200 miles to the west of Rockall.

Mr. Jopling: As I understand it, Community and international law state that Community waters extend for 200 miles. I know that Rockall is a legal issue at the moment, and I do not want to get involved in that.

Mr. John Silkin: I think that I may be able to help the House. This is a material point. The Treaty of Accession and the regulation which preceded it used terminology which I have never ceased to use myself and which I hope that the

House will want to continue using. It describes those waters as being under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the member Slate.

Mr. Jopling: If that is a clearer way of describing those waters, I gladly use that term. It is a definition that I would much prefer, although the expression I used earlier is widely used by fishermen and the fishing industry. We all fall into these traps.
I was saying that with adequate conservation we would avoid the sort of situation which emerged recently whereby British firms have had to buy Icelandic cod in Holland and bring it overland for processing in this country. There would then be a much better chance of fish being caught and landed from Icelandic or Norwegian sources by British trawlers.
The proposals before us are a start, but they need major alteration or addition and major stiffening if they are to be properly effective. They will need a great deal of improvement and stiffening if we are to get the yield I have just described.
As they stand the measures are pitifully inadequate. Partly, as in Document R/2147, they consolidate existing arrangements over the ban on direct herring fishing. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us how he sees the long term. The proposed measures are of limited duration and it would be helpful for him to tell us what he sees for the future and whether he is confident that the ban on direct herring fishing will be able to extend further.
We support the measures in R/2147 and some of the proposals in R/2429. But, as the Minister said, that proposal is not satisfactory. It is based principally upon the NEAFC rules, which have proved so immensely unsatisfactory. They deal with some matters that we support concerning the control of mesh sizes and industrial fishing. We, like the Minister, believe that the percentage of by-catching is far too high and that it should be greatly controlled.
The Minister referred to the proposal, which has caused such consternation in the fishing industry to raise the sizes of mesh to 90 mm. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) put his finger on the point when he said that the fishermen


were particularly concerned about the whiting fishery. On mesh sizes the industry wants a change to 80 and 85 mm. The job of the Government is to strike a balance between what is right for conservation of the stock and what is necessary to avoid putting a great many fishermen out of business by a mesh size that is too large for them to be able to make a living.
On industrial fishing and the control of by-catches we support the controls imposed so far as they go. We particularly welcome the Government's unilateral imposition of a ban on Norway pout fishing in the box in the North Sea. As proposal R/2521 was not agreed by the Council, we believe it was right for the Government to take steps under the Hague agreement to have nondiscriminatory measures to deal with pout fishing in this area.
The damage done by industrial fishing is immense. The Minister quoted a figure which I found surprising in the light of figures that I have seen. He said that the catch of haddock and whiting would increase by 200,000 tons in the North Sea if there were to be no pout fishing.
However, I understand that the Ministry's laboratory at Lowestoft had estimated that 550,000 tons of immature edible fish were already caught by industrial fishing methods. The laboratory has estimated that if those fish were allowed to grow to maturity, there would be a potential extra 1 million tons a year of edible fish in the North Sea. That means that the 550,000 tons of immature fish would be permitted to grow under a properly managed arrangement.
I realise that the Minister's figure covered only haddock and whiting, but I understood that industrial fishing was particularly hard on these two species. Nevertheless, there seems to be a discrepancy between the Minister's figure and the figure produced by the scientists.
The proposed quotas that individual sovereign States will be allowed to catch under R /2434 are, as the Minister said, unacceptable. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposal is totally, utterly and irrevocably unacceptable to the Government. I can tell him and the House that they are equally totally,

utterly and irrevocably unacceptable to the Opposition.
The proposal seeks to give the United Kingdom 22 per cent. of the fish from the waters that we are talking about whereas 60 per cent. are caught in British waters. The overall situation is intolerable, and individually it is ridiculous.
I expect that all those who intend to speak in the debate will have examined the proposals and will have found ways of demonstrating how intolerable it is. I shall quote only one set of figures, which I have extracted from the proposals. I take the waters of the Irish Sea, the Bristol Channel, West and South Ireland and the English Channel. That is the band along the English Channel, round Land's End and then up both sides of Ireland covering the Bristol Channel and the Irish Sea. I take what I think are the six principal species that are caught in that band, namely, haddock, whiting, saithe, cod, sole and plaice.
How are the three coastal States—namely France, Ireland and the United Kingdom—treated under the proposals? The proposed quotas demonstrate the unfairness of the proposals. For that area of sea and for those six species, Ireland is allocated 22,379 tonnes, France, if you please, is allocated 32,172 tonnes, and the United Kingdom, which is much the largest coastal State in that area of water, is allocated 10,453 tonnes, which is less than half the Irish allocation and less than a third of the French allocation. That seems clearly to demonstrate how totally unfair are the proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to make it clear that no British Government could accept such quotas. Clearly, we are entitled to a far greater share.
It seems that no importance has been attached to our lost opportunities in third country waters. The Minister referred briefly to a committee, which he said was reporting after considering the problems of the loss of opportunities in third countries. It will be helpful to be told when the committee will be reporting. I imagine that it will report to the Council of Ministers or, perhaps, to the Commission. I hope that its report will be available to the Council of Ministers when it meets next week. It


would be extremely helpful to us to know that the impact of the loss of third country fishing opportunity was clear before the Ministers met.
We totally reject the suggestion that quotas are a fair and proper way of sharing out the catch. Time and time again we have said that the sharing-out must be done by control through fishing effort. Recent examples have made it clear how the quota system can fall down. There has been a recent example in the way in which the Norwegian quota to Community countries has meant that the British fishing fleet has been robbed of 2,600 tons of fish in Norwegian waters purely because the French or German, or both—nobody seems to know—cheated on their quotas and robbed our fishermen of 2,600 tons.
The whole history of NEAFC has shown the futility of the quota system. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is seized of the point and that he, like my right hon. and hon. Friends has consistently—[interruption.] The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) may laugh, but it is evident that he does not attend our fishing debates regularly. If he did, he would know that the Opposition have consistently complained about the quota system and spoken in favour of the effort system. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) almost has those sentences engraved on his heart, I have heard him say them so often.
In R/2428 there are further arrangements laid down for the control of catches and fishing activities. First—I regret to have to say it—we are not very confident about the ability of some member States to carry out the inspections and deal with the controls. There have been frequent examples of blind eyes being turned to flagrant breaches of the regulations. I am told by those in the fishing industry that the by-catches in some European-cum-Community ports—apparently one has only to go on the quayside to see this—are flagrantly in breach of the regulations. I am told that they are allowed to be far greater than the regulations permit.
Recently we have had the disgraceful case of a French trawler that was arrested because of illegal fishing. The skipper produced some regulations issued by the

French authorities that suggested that he was permitted to use a small mesh industrial net provided that he had at least 20 per cent. of trash—that is, industrial fish—within his catch. The skipper interpreted the regulations as meaning that up to 80 per cent. of his catch with an industrial net could be white fish. That is a classic example that has been reported in the Press. It was drawn to my attention by those in the fishing industry to show how the regulations issued by the French authorities are encouraging flagrant breaches of the regulations.
The new common fisheries policy must find a way of reducing the opportunities for cheating, which at present are far too numerous. We believe that the coastal States are best equipped to control fishing practice and conservation, but the rules set up to allow them to do so must be tight so that there is the minimum amount of cheating. That is why we have always supported the industry in its demand for a 50-mile exclusive economic zone. That is why we do not quarrel with the proposal in R/2642, which gives a derogation to the French herring fishermen along a stretch of their coast. We hope that this will lead to similar controlled derogations in United Kingdom waters.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the East Anglia fisheries, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) saw the right hon. Gentleman during the recess with a number of the fishermen in his constituency. My right hon. Friend and his constituents were asking for exactly that sort of derogation for the fishermen in their area. That has not been granted, but I hope that the French derogation is not a straw in the wind and that the Minister will use it to get the sort of derogation to which he has referred.
More important, we hope that the French derogation will lead to a wide acceptance of the rights of coastal States to control and look after fishing activities and to have the right to fish within those waters. The Minister made that point after the Brussels meeting, and it is one on which we support him entirely.

Mr. John Prescott: I find some difficulty in following the hon. Member's argument about how


the Opposition have always supported the exclusive area concept. If he is talking of controlled derogations in exclusive areas, how can he hope that they will be equal exclusive areas?

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I was thinking that these derogations might be the precursors of the establishment of exclusive economic zones.
I shall be surprised if in the next few months we achieve a 50-mile exclusive economic zone. In the meantime the Minister should do his best to arrange derogations of this kind around our coasts. We believe that these derogations represent the right approach. We agree with the Minister that fisheries are best concentrated around our fishing ports. We urge the Minister to be resolute in his negotiations on these matters.
We should like to hear further about the views of the Government on the type of action that they took over Norway pout to control stocks on a non-discriminatory basis under the Hague agreement. There are a number of ways in which the Government could act within the law in the same way as they did over Norway pout. Perhaps they will have to act soon on that basis.
It would be helpful to know whether the Government have plans to limit further the percentage of by-catch, particularly in industrial fishing and where it involves herring. It would be helpful to know what plans the Government have to do what the industry badly wants them to do in order to prevent vessels from carrying more than one type of net. This would go a long way to conserve our fish stocks. It would be helpful to know how far the Government are going towards banning beam trawling. The Minister has said that the scientists have not yet come to a decision. If he had set up a Royal Commission, he would have had an answer before now.

Mr. John Silkin: May I explain the problems as a non-scientist? There is nothing wrong, as such, with beam trawling, but the beam trawler is very fast and powerful and, because of its speed and power, the mesh becomes clogged. That results in smaller fish being taken. One must leave the scientists to deal with that.

Mr. Jopling: The scientists seem to be taking a long time to come to a conclusion.
Have the Government any plans to try to stop the growth of purse-seining? I am sure that in his visits to the southwest of England the Minister will have been aware that a great many fish which are not caught are killed. They are caught and the net is slipped without the fish being landed on the boat because their quality or size is not that for which the vessel is looking. Purse-seining is an extremely expensive way in terms of fish stocks of catching fish.

Mr. Costain: I have talked to fishermen about beam trawling, which is particularly bad in the South of England. I am told that the trouble is caused because breeding is upset by beam trawling rather than because of the clogging of nets.

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is referring to the Minister's reply. I was dealing with purse-seining.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us the Government's views about the outcome of a situation whereby Russian fishing vessels, particularly in our mackerel fisheries, have been banned. Yet freezers seem to have appeared from a number of Eastern European countries and are shipping vast quantities of mackerel from our own boats, which is having the same effect on our stocks as the Russian trawlers had.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member has mentioned transhipping at sea of mackerel from our boats to Russian vessels. Can he say where this has occurred?

Mr. Jopling: I understand that it is happening in the Carrick Roads in the Falmouth Estuary. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will correct me if I am wrong.
I must impress on the Minister the need for resolution in negotiations. We all know that as it passes time is cutting back on the stocks of fish. I hope that the House will agree that it would be wrong to go for a quick solution, because, although time is eroding the fish stocks in the end such a solution would be against the interests of our


fishing industry. It is essential that we see the problem through.
I was glad to hear what the Minister said. There was little in his speech with which we disagreed. There are many matters in the proposals with which we disagree. But we do not intend to divide the House against them. We have expressed our views adequately and we hope that when the Minister goes to his meetings this debate will have strengthened his hand considerably.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I was interested to hear the last few words of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) about not dividing the House. When I look back over the years of fishing debates I find that the Minister is in an almost unique position. He has the whole House behind him on an EEC matter. When he goes on 5th December to settle these issues, I hope that he is successful because no one here is stabbing him in the back, which has happened so often in the past.
The Minister has said that if we do not accept the proposals we might lapse again into ad hoc measures. Commissioner Gundelach is living hand to mouth, day by day. We all like Ministers to show no-nonsense, robust attitudes. We are sending the Minister to the meetings with our hopes and hearts behind him.
The debate is about three issues. There are three attitudes and three ways of looking at them. First, the debate is about the conservation of existing stocks. If we do not conserve there will be nothing left for the future.
Secondly, it concerns catch quotas. Thirdly, and even more important, the debate is about how on earth one enforces those quotas. How does one stop French fishermen, for instance, when their catch quota is fulfilled from taking more than their entitlement from the West Celtic Sea? The statistics for quotas are comical and cockeyed. The situation is amazing.
I look at the issue with three basic fundamentals behind my comments. These are the continuous and continuing constants in my head: first, conservation is vital, therefore we must all accept it. Anyone opting out of conservation measures should be outlawed. Secondly, the United Kingdom has within her

borders the lion's share of the EEC stocks. Thirdly, can we depend upon our partners to play the game in this matter of the existing stocks? I doubt this very much.
We have before us Document R/2434/77. What are the policy implications mentioned there? It points out that the Commission will attempt to maintain where possible the traditional catch of North Britain. It does not define this catch. What parts of the country are included? Is Northumberland in it? What about Berwick-upon-Tweed? Does it extend to the southern edge of the ancient kingdom of Northumbria, which is Hull?
It also refers to where local communities are particularly dependent on fishing, but indicates that no account has been taken of losses suffered by some member States, particularly the United Kingdom, in third country waters. Without being too parochial, I hope, I point out that we have lost 40 vessels fishing off Iceland—nearly 1,000 men on deck. We were catching 130,000 tons of cod and some haddock a year or two ago. We have seen those 40 vessels come and go. They no longer do this. What compensation do we get for this? Nothing. We get no compensation from our Icelandic efforts, never mind the EEC computation of what we should get. Are we to be given any compensation for the fish that we have lost and for the men who are unemployed?
What about the social effects? There is mention of North Norway and of Scotland, but what about the social effects in Hull? In my local paper this week—the Hull Daily Mail—there was a report to the effect that in a certain section of my constituency, Hessle Road, the city council intends to preserve fishermen's cottages as industrial archaeology. It will be just like the coalfield near Berwick-upon-Tweed. My own village is now industrial archaeology. The mine has been closed and is there for people to look at, as are the old houses in which some of us were born. The same can happen to the fish dock in West Hull.
Why is no account taken of this? Is it because of lack of good will or understanding by our EEC partners, or is it because of the general inability of people who function as politicians, in Paris and


elsewhere, to consider the situation in a sister State which has been placed in these disastrous straits by the action of third nations such as Iceland and the Soviet Union?
No amount of unctuous claptrap in Brussels or elsewhere will convince me. Nothing that the Danes or the French can do will smooth away the feelings of people such as myself and my constituents. What is Commissioner Gundelach doing? There is endless delay in settling matters, but the longer the delay, the closer are knitted all sections of our industry here at home.
My complaint about the fishing industry in the past has been that it had no leadership. It has just been a collection of disunited factions. Now, in adversity, these factions are coming together. Only last week there was a delegation of 30 men representing for the first time all sections of the industry, from owners through to fish and chip men in Leeds and merchants in Cornwall. They are united against EEC policy. For the first time events are forcing unity upon us.
There is, indeed, unity in this Chamber tonight. Not a single hon. Member will get up and attack the Minister. The EEC will be attacked but not the Minister. How long has this been happening? We did not have it three years ago. It has happened only fairly recently. It is a very significant and important fact in the life of this House, in the life of this nation and in the lives of our fishing constituents who want to get to sea and catch fish.
As for the 50 miles exclusive economic zone, I have here a very fine international magazine, Fishing News International, for November 1977. At the top of page 29 there is the heading:
"Limit claim illusory', says Gundelach."
It goes on to say that he
bluntly told Irish fishermen that a 50-mile limit it not on.
But further down the page what I see is not a report of the Commissioner talking on the Continent but a report showing that our own flesh and blood are fighting on this issue. It says:
Everywhere in the industry the call is for 50 miles exclusive. Nothing else will do; or

at least no one likes to admit that they would settle for less. And nobody has the slightest faith in the Community's proposed quota system, which is regarded as demonstrably uncontrollable and as ignoring the vital role of the coastal state in resource management.
This has been said tonight ad nauseam, but it really is only the coastal State, whose people depend upon those coastal waters for their living, which can be expected to safeguard the stocks in those waters. Men living in the Western Isles will safeguard fish off the west coast of Scotland—not men who are living in Brittany or men who are living in Jutland. At least, I do not think so, based on what I have seen and heard from skippers and fishermen in the industry for the last decade or so since I went to Hull.
At the meeting last month in Dublin, people spoke from England, Scotland and Ireland. Shades of devolution, debates! If we could speak together on that issue as well, it would be helpful. But today everyone in the industry is speaking with one voice, whether it is the fish and chip men from Leeds, the auctioneers from Grimsby or the merchants from all parts of the country. They are all standing together, and they are all genuinely scared about the proposed quotas and the implications of this sort of policy.
I should like to make a passing comment on the quotas, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland. He did not say what many people would say. Many people would call this Annex to R/2434/77 a Gaullist or Chauvinist shambles created by people on the Continent. A careful look at the quota figures indicates that they do not support the interests of the people we come here to represent.
I have been totting up the figures. I have not looked at geographical area 21 or some place to the west of Scotland. I have attempted to add up, as honestly as I could, the figures for the United Kingdom and France in those areas which lie about our shores—our water, so-called. My figures for the United Kingdom add up to about 480,000 tons. The figures for France come to about 300,000 tons. It has often been said that the French catch 60 per cent. of the total national catch in our waters. It has been said time and time again and never denied by anyone. But since our fleets were catching together, inshore, in middle


water and distant water—with Iceland at 130,000 tons and Norway at 100,000 tons or less—up to 900,000 tons two, four or six years ago, where are we to get the extra fish to bring us up to that total in our existing catch? I cannot see Iceland giving us any fish next week, next month, or next year, but I can see Icelandic fish being landed. I do not object for one moment at seeing Hull auctioneers, bobbers and lumpers getting jobs on shore.

Mr. Prescott: It seems silly for us to maintain the ban on Icelandic white fish when many of our dockers and bobbers are being put out of work. Since Iceland is claiming exclusive waters for coastal control, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is reasonable that we should now end this ban?

Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend knows that I have been saying that in Hull. But there are some people opposed to it, yet there are some owners, but not all, who want this fish landed. The bobbers want it landed and I believe also the Transport and General Workers Union which speaks for the bobbers. I believe that they are not opposed to the philosophy or the ethics of this.
But the headache lies in the fact that there is a plan to divide the fish landings into four ports and for those areas to share the work that is available. I think the ports are Fleetwood, Aberdeen, Grimsby and Hull. It is common on the shop floor for union leaders to share out the work when there is not much work available. I do not object to that at all. I would welcome fish coming into Hull dock tomorrow—if it gave work not merely to the lads on the dock but to all those on shore employed in Birds Eye, Findus and the other processing factories that litter the dockside in Hull. That is my view about the matter.
The Minister and I have held different views in the past about the EEC, but we are certainly not at loggerheads over this issue. We are at one. The Minister came to the industry as someone from the outside. He has not only earned, but deserved, the respect and affection of all sections of the industry. I have not met anyone who does not say that the Minister is someone who will fight on our behalf. The industry has faith in him. I hope he will justify that faith. I

do not think he will let the industry down. My only fear is that the odds are perhaps a bit heavy. I hope that they are not too heavy.

8.3 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I very much hope that the debate will help the Minister when he goes to Brussels next week. I am certain that the expressions we have had so far show that we are almost unanimous in our approach. I should like to put a few points on one aspect of fishing, namely, industrial fishing.
It is terribly easy to get steamed up about this matter and to say that we should ban all industrial fishing. But we have a considerable number of fishmeal factories in many parts of the world and it is not practicable suddenly to say that we should ban all industrial fishing. I am certain that the scientific facts of the effects of industrial fishing are well known to the scientific advisers of the various Governments of the EEC, but it would be useful if all this information could be drawn together and represented.
We are obviously in considerable conflict with the Danes about the Norway pout box, which we are continuing. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) quoted figures for the amount of by-catch fishing which, if allowed to go on, could in future damage more edible fish. In the same way I believe that the Danes are catching about 350,000 tons of sand eels, which are the food for cod and other white fish. There must be a right balance to strike as to the amount of sand eels that we shauld harvest, because if we do not harvest the right amount, there will be insufficient for other species. There is obviously a need to strike a balance between the weight of sand eels that can be caught by industrial fishing and the amount that should be used as food for other fish.
I also believe that we should be turning our minds to some of our fishing vessels that have departed from other waters, such as around Iceland, to see whether they could be diverted, if necessary, into industrial fishing. They could look for blue whiting in the Outer Hebrides, in the Atlantic and possibly down into the South Atlantic. Having been to the Falkland Islands, I was interested in the Shackleton


Report on the development of fishing in that area.
I should like the Minister to say whether it would be worth while to try to bring together all the information about the amount of industrial fishing that has been carried out so that we might find a pattern and accommodate the increasing amount of fish for human consumption while satisfying the obvious needs of the fishmeal industry. If we just shout "Ban industrial fishing" and do nothing else, I do not think that we are taking concrete steps to help the industry.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister a question on quite a different matter. It concerns the EEC proposals to help herring fishermen in the North Sea who are unable to fish because of the ban. As I understand it, the scheme runs from March of this year until the end of next year and compensates fishermen at the rate of —42 per tonne for what they have been unable to catch, based on their average landings for the previous three years.
I do not think that this year any of our fishermen will qualify, because every time we enforce a ban on fishing we know that fishermen are under pressure to go and fish for another species in another part of the world. So far as possible, some of our fishermen should be encouraged to take this money rather than fish for another species. That they will undoubtedly do in order to maintain their livelihood. If the Secretary of State can give the House an answer on this subject, that would be very helpful.
If the Minister thinks it worth while to have some drawing together of the information about industrial fishing, that would help us to strike a better balance.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is only the second fishing debate in which I have taken part. We are falling to a common pattern, that of speaking to the converted. The House unanimously backs the Minister when he goes to take part in further discussions in the Market. Yet each time nothing happens. We ask for a possible change in the common fisheries policy but each time the renewal of the discussions means that the crisis is just indefinitely postponed.
Yet while all this goes on, the industry slips deeper into crisis. I am not saying this as a criticism of my right hon. Friend, because he has clearly shown the right mixture of firmness and scepticism about the Market. The House has shown its unanimous support for the stand that he has taken. But we must recognise that he has a task which makes the labours of Sisyphus look like a boy scout on a bob-a-job week.
In fishing our entry into the Market was a sacrifice and sell-out so disastrous that even the Conservative Opposition is now beginning to recognise the scale of it and pays deference to it in crocodile tears. The Government have given notice that the trend world wide towards 200-mile limits has created a new situation and made it necessary to renegotiate the basis of the common fisheries policy. In doing that, the Minister has taken on an enormous uphill struggle. But, while it goes on, we are approaching a tragic situation in the industry.
The situation which has developed in Grimsby over the past few months is one which has come after the setback of the closure of the Icelandic grounds and the curtailments of our effort in Norwegian waters. On 10th November, there were 620 fishermen in Grimsby registered unemployed. Last week, Consolidated Fisheries, the second biggest trawling company in Grimsby laid up more vessels and laid off two-thirds of its people. The seiners, the smaller vessels, are now mainly laid up for the winter. In normal circumstances at this time of the year, many of those engaged in seine fishing would transfer to the trawlers, but that is not possible in present circumstances because the deep water fleet is running out of waters to fish.
The Norwegian quota is exhausted, and that is a situation which has been exacerbated by the French tonnage pinching part of our quota—an act which in itself demonstrates the inadequacy of quotas to police fishing and to control it. Distant-water vessels have been transferred to the westerly grounds with pathetic results because of the concentration on those grounds of vessels diverted from Norwegian waters. The result is that, of today's four landings in Grimsby, only one of those vessels has been profitable. The rest have come back with catches so small that their


daily break-even costs have been only half-covered by the trips that they have made.
The Grimsby fish market has seen its worst ever trading. In the past month, we have seen a tragic record, with the smallest catch landed there for 121 years. We are averaging less than 2,000 kits of fish landed per day in Grimsby. We need 5,000 to keep the market going. The result is that the distribution system on which Grimsby prides itself and which is vital to the wellbeing of the port is now under considerable financial strain. It is a non-profit-making concern. There is not enough fish coming through to keep the distribution system functioning properly. Another result is that merchants are laying off filleters, and the processing side is having to cut back effort. There is no prospect of this situation picking up until the New Year and new quotas.
The problem is to know whether this is to be a tragedy just for this year or one which will be repeated next year. In other words, will this be the Common Market's Christmas present to Grimsby?
Expedients have been put in hand. Last week, the owners agreed to reduce charges for Common Market vessels. This is a welcome development, because it means that the fish we cannot catch ourselves any longer can come into the market. Discussions are now beginning about the ending of the ban on Icelandic wet fish landings. The Transport and General Workers Union, which represents the lumpers and the bobbers, is reviewing its position and entering negotiations on landings of Iceland wet fish in order to keep our markets going. I hope that the owners, who are divided on this issue, will also lift their ban. There is no point in the owners hiding, behind the skirts of the Transport and General Workers Union on this issue. If they want to maintain the ban, they must do so and incur the odium which will fall on their shoulders for maintaining a ban if the TWGU changes its position, which I hope it will. Bringing in fish from outside is only an expedient. We want fish caught by our own boats and by our own fishermen.
There are even more clouds and anxieties on the horizon in the shape of worries for the smaller vessels. Because

of the fears of a quota of 150 vessels for the whole of Southern Norwegian waters, alarm is now being created among smaller vessel owners as well. If a 150-vessel quota is imposed by Norway in these southern waters, it will be disastrous for Grimsby since it would mean that our share would be small and that other vessels would have to move on to grounds further south which are already over-fished by Common Market vessels.
That is for the future. We have an immediate problem in Grimsby which is tragic in its dimensions. It is one in which I cannot feel any great sympathy for the larger owners. My cheeks are not running warm with tears of sympathy for them. It is a setback for owners who have done well out of fishing and yet in spite of that have not ploughed their money back—and have not improved their vessels and provided adequate conditions for their crews. Unfortunately, however, a setback for the owners, many of whom have fat with which to ride it out, is a tragedy for the men.
When fishermen are laid off, unemployed and on the dole and they ask me why, as they have done over recent weekends, I have to go into tortuous explanations about the world trend to 200-mile limits, the problems of the common fisheries policy and the difficulty of our negotiations with the Common Market. Then they ask me what we are doing to try to change the common fisheries policy, and again I go into long explanations about the current negotiations and about the strong position which my right hon. Friend has taken in them.
But then they ask me, if these negotiations are going on endlessly, if we are not getting anywhere in them and if all we get from the Common Market is more and more documents, recommendations and papers, why are not we taking unilateral action. I have to confess that I am stumped for an answer. I am stumped to answer them and to tell them why we do not use more of the powers that we still have to take unilateral national conservation measures. This surely is the key to asserting our own control of our own waters, taking national conservation measures, and through that, gradually getting back what we have lost.
I am also stumped for an answer if I am asked when we shall begin to take the unilateral action which alone seems designed to end this protracted series of negotiations. The Prime Minister has been outspoken in his criticism of the Common Market and his demand for reforms of the basic structures of the Common Market. The common fisheries policy is a prime candidate for just those reforms.
It is a clear-cut issue. We have a clear-cut grievance. We have a clear-cut demand. We provide two-thirds of the fish in the so-called Common Market pool. We want two-thirds of the catch. It is no more than our right and no more than our due. We have a clear-cut demand and a very pressing need at the moment. In Grimsby, there is a growing demand for unilateral assertion of what is, after all, only our right. The more protracted these negotiations are, the more overwhelming will be the demand for unilateral action.
Instead of trying to unravel this tangled mess of the common fisheries policy, we should take unilateral action to cut this Gordian knot. That is the demand which I see in Grimsby, and it is a demand which will grow louder and clearer the longer that this farce of negotiation goes on.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I want first and briefly to deal with some of the specific matters arising from these documents, after which I shall turn to the more general issues which have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken already, including the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I mention first the herring exemption granted to France, referred to in one of the documents, and the situation facing East coast fishermen who also want to fish for herring.
The Minister of State was kind enough to write to me a letter which I received today spelling out in more detail the discussions which are going on about the possibility of a further derogation on herring for inshore fishermen in other countries besides France. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that he expected that probably it would apply only to

vessels of less than a certain length—perhaps 40 feet or 50 feet—using gill nets or drift nets.
I put to the Minister the case of the Longstone fishery off the Fame Islands in Northumberland. There is increasing scientific evidence that that fishery is distinct in its spawning time and its stock replenishment from the general North Sea herring fishery and, therefore, that those who traditionally fished it from its immediate locality have special grounds for consideration if any exemptions are to be made. Reluctantly they have accepted the ban which applies to them because they, too, saw the need for a general ban and a general acceptance of it. If it can be shown that the Longstone Fishery is distinct and that they have taken proper care of it over the years, I think that their interests must be given very careful consideration. I would be interested to know what the latest thinking in the Ministry is on the state of the Longstone Fishery and whether it is being fed into these discussions on further exemptions which might be granted.
On the conservation proposals referred to by other Members, particularly the minimum mesh sizes for white fish species in the North Sea, the 90 mm limit may suit some people. It may suit some areas in which cod and flatfish are the main target. I am thinking of areas further south than us, the Humber and Lowestoft. But it will not do for the inshore fishermen. Even within the Norwegian sector an 80 mm minimum is at present allowed. I am advised by all the inshore fishermen that a 70 mm minimum is the only reasonable limit within which they can fish for whiting.
By-catch limitations of white fish are necessary and good, but the present wording of the documents leaves it open to abuse if industrial fishermen can still carry small-mesh and large-mesh nets at the same time. Unless there is some limitation on what nets can be carried, the objective of the regulations will not be carried out in any case. Perhaps it is necessary to make some special provision for vessels in transit from distant ports—some kind of provision under which they might be allowed to carry a second net which would be sealed and could be unsealed only on inspection at a British port. The situation ought to be looked at very carefully.
The 70 mm minimum is proposed for prawn nets. This is a sensible step. It is, after all, in line with British thinking and British practice over many years, unlike the Irish and French, who use 40 mm to 60 mm nets. The trouble with prawn nets is that they have a high white fish by-catch, and if there is an increase in the mesh size of white fish nets to 90 mm, everybody will carry prawn nets to catch white fish. So the purpose of the regulation would not be served. I do not see how we can operate enforcement on this basis. We may have to settle, if it is to work well at all, for 70 mm all round. I cannot see a workable conservation régime acceptable and enforceable resulting from these proposals.
It is a small mercy, and something to be welcomed, that we have proposals on conservation and control emanating from the Community at all. But now that the discussion has moved into that field, it is necessary to emphasise how important landing control is in any conservation régime and how everything depends on this. If there is to be any move in the direction of common rights to fish, common exploitation of resources, or shared resources, there must also be common rights to enforce control and the opportunity to apply controls in foreign ports. If we have no check and monitoring of what is being landed in the ports of other Community countries, there is no possibility of an effective conservation régime. Any pooling of resources must be accompanied by a willingness to co-operate in our enforcement measures. That means having British inspectors able to go into and free to move between the Common Market ports to carry out inspections on the spot.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Surely it is in the proposals that the inspectorate of each member State acts on behalf of the Community and that there are Community inspectors to back it in order to ensure common settlement of landing rights. One may not believe it, but that is what is in the proposal.

Mr. Beith: I am aware that it is in the proposals, but even if it satisfies the hon. Gentleman, it does not satisfy me. I do not see that we have a pool of inspectors available in other Community countries whose record in conservation would justify our placing our trust in them. I

am prepared to see inspectors from other countries coming to British ports in reciprocation for British inspectors being able to operate in their ports, but I cannot think that there is any basis yet for a reliable Community conservation inspectorate. We may get round to it, but we are a long way from it. We have to have responsible British inspectors able to move between some of the Community ports in order to check on landings. Our willingness to accept the reverse shows that there is no bad faith about it but that it is a necessity in order to satisfy the fishing community about what is being done.
The proposals include yet again management of fisheries by quota. I need not add to the general despair evoked at the mention of quotas as a conservation method. Still less need I add to the comments about "Northern Britain". If we in Berwick are under some difficulty in knowing whether we ought to be in Scotland or in England, we should at least be satisfied that we are in Northern Britain. But I am speechless at the whole concept.
The massive contribution of the United Kingdom to the fishing resources of the Community still gets a ludicrous return. There are few things more contemptible—not too strong a word—than the attempt to buy off little Ireland with some measly donation from the British fish stocks. It is like a bank robber saying to the night watchman, "If you keep quiet while I rob the bank, you can have some of the loose change". I hope that the Irish do not fall for it. I hope that, like us, they insist on a sensible policy which is based on rights of member countries in waters which if they were not in the Community would be indisputably theirs.
This document will take us nowhere near an acceptable common fisheries policy or a policy that the Minister can or would want to defend in this House. He knows—and has made it clear in a speech that we all welcome—that the other members of the Council of Ministers and the Commission—each is as bad as the other—do not realise that there is no way in which a British Minister can give in to their demands for a completely unrealistic common fisheries policy and carry it in this House.
I do not think that the Minister will be surprised or displeased to hear me


say that, if he cannot secure full provision for our fisheries and full protection for future stocks, we must go back to the 50-mile exclusive limit declared unilaterally. We should be left with no alternative. There is a majority in this House for it, but there is no majority for the kind of nonsense that the Commission and other members of the Council of Ministers seem to think that we might be prepared to accept.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I am not surprised at the rediscovery of chauvinism, which has been found during the debate among many supporters of our entry into the EEC. It is interesting to recall the referendum campaign. With the exception of Orkney and Shetland, it is hard to find the fishing industry speaking with a united voice on that occasion and saying that proposals like these were unacceptable. Let us not just blame politicians for not saying so. The fishing industry was lamentably silent on my side of the argument urging that we should not stay in the Common Market.

Mr. Watt: Surely the voice of the Scottish fishing industry was clearly enough heard when it appointed no fewer than eight of the 11 Scottish National Party Members in this House to represent fishing communities.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It should be made clear that at any rate individual fishermen have said to me that they regret voting for the United Kingdom to stay in the Common Market. There is no point in trying to slide out of it by saying that the Scottish fishermen had no voice.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Perhaps I may complete the paradox. We are in danger of throwing out an embryo, if not a live baby, with the bathwater of these proposals. Allowing for many of the weaknesses in them, there are certain elements that we would be foolish simply to dismiss, and the first of these concerns the problem of by-catching of the Norway pout. Let us look carefully at what it involves. There is no doubt that damage to fish resources by the fishing of the Norway pout creates unacceptable levels of by-catch and a diminution of future stocks.
If we look at the location in terms of lateral geography and depth within the sea and take into consideration the seasons within the year, it will be seen that some interesting results are produced. The report commissioned by the European Community showed these results. The first concerns Iceland. If a differentiation is made over the depth at which fishing takes place—and Iceland has managed to do this without too much difficulty—it will be seen that the by-catch can be reduced substantially. I was in Reykjavik last week and saw figures showing how, by fishing close in on their southern shore and by forbidding trawling below a certain level, the Norwegians have been able effectively to eliminate a large part of the by-catch.
The positioning of the pout box produces interesting results. Stopping the pout box at zero degrees produces one result yet moving it one degree east brings a quite different result. What is interesting, bearing in mind the cry of those who call for a 50-mile exclusive zone, is that there is not a square inch between zero degrees and one degree east within the 50-mile zone. The benefit gained for conservation purposes by extending the pout box eastwards takes us completely outside an exclusive 50-mile zone. That is in an area for which not even our most ardent advocates of a 50-mile zone are calling.
If we push the pout box only to zero degrees and from 56 degrees north to 60 degrees north, in the whole year we take roughly 134,000 tons of by-catch. If the box is moved one degree further east, that figure is pushed up to 383,000 tons. It is that crucial change that is wholly outside the 50-mile exclusive zone. It is in this area, looking at the monthly breakdown of figures, that the damage to zero and one-year stock is most grave.

Mr. James Johnson: Is not the argument for the 50-mile exclusive zone basically that our people should be able to catch fish in that zone? I accept all the arguments about conservation of Norway pout. I thought that the extension from 12 miles to 50 miles was to help the inshore men and others who would have the benefit of the fishery protection flotilla.

Mr. Hughes: Part of the difficulty is the confusion about what we mean by a


50-mile fixed zone. Many people believe it to be what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) has just outlined. For others it means something different. In 1976 it was in the extended box, east to zero degrees, that the bulk of the immature young haddock in particular were caught. In that year 176,000 tons of haddock were caught for human consumption and 41,000 tons were caught, predominantly in that area, for industrial purposes.
We have to compare the number of fish. The 41,000 tons represented an estimate of 390 million fish whereas the 176,000 tons represented 430 million fish. This was to do with the size of the fish caught. Future generations have been robbed of haddock as a result. It is this imbalance that is located outside our 50-mile zone. That is the problem and there is no evidence that excessive fishing for the pout harms it.
The area seems to be extraordinarily resilient. It is able to provide 300,000 to 400,000 tons of pout just as well now as it ever did when it was not fished. Norway pout is just one example of problem areas for conservation. There are also common stocks on the Viking Bank on the median line between Norway and this country where the 50-mile limit, as it is sometimes crudely estimated, is totally irrelevant. Giving our fishermen a 50-mile limit does not give them access to the joint stocks near the Viking Bank. For many fishermen in Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, it is that access which is important. As has already been mentioned, those fishermen use the seine net. Those from Grimsby are in the same position.
A 50-mile exclusive zone is wholly meaningless if it means that our inshore fishermen alone may fish there. As a conservation measure, it is wholly inadequate, because the belt and braces need is for the Government to take unilateral conservation measures, perhaps right out to the 200-mile limit of our national waters. We cannot stop with conservation measures at 50 miles. It does not make biological sense or political sense, in legalistic terms. A 50-mile exclusive limit as a means of securing the livelihood of inshore fishermen may have defects, but the concept of a 50-mile

exclusive zone for conservation is a total nonsense.
Conservation, the migration of species, and the needs of all the fishermen in the Community all demand that the Community should provide a conservation policy, which it has woefully failed to do so far, although it is hard at times to distinguish between the intransigence of the Council and the failure of the Commission. If the Community fails to provide an adequate conservation policy, it is incumbent on Ireland, ourselves and every other member State of the Community to take unilateral conservation measures. This is a different problem from that of a 50-mile exclusive zone for fishermen to exploit.
We have here a deep socio-philsophical problem—to use the jargon—in that the days when either inshore or deep-water fishermen might go and hunt where they would for their fish are over. The efficiency and sophistication of their own technology has destroyed that for ever. There are no longer enough fish in the North Atlantic—and there are doubts about whether enough exists in the South Atlantic—for free access hunting to be the basis on which fisheries can continue. In those terms, quotas in themselves are a disaster and we must move towards a system of such strict licensing as will convert the hunter into a licensed operator.
The gear that the fisherman may use must be defined very closely. He must not be allowed to take two sorts of nets, although there may be some operating conditions in which that is inevitable. He may go only where and when permitted, and he must have sophisticated radio beacons and the rest so that aerial surveillance can show where he is. He must have a whole range of controls laid upon him. He will object to all this because it destroys a way of life as old as man's fishing.
I accept that the quotas are woefully inadequate for various species and in various areas. The major conceptual weakness—and this is my major criticism of the Community proposals—is the absence of a decision to determine and impose effective licensing, which alone may make other fishermen believe that it is in every fisherman's interest to become a patrol vessel himself. It is


only when we convert the fisherman to the need to conserve his own on behalf of his own and give him a proprietorship in the fishing grounds in which he is wont to fish that we can do this.
I was in Iceland last week and saw the degree to which, under stern necessity, the Icelandic fishermen have accepted stringent licensing and control. When one sees that, one realises how far we must go, and in that regard our membership or non-membership of the Community is at times a mere irrelevance. If we had remained outside and had had a 200-mile exclusive zone, the need to enforce such regulations upon our fishing would have been no less. It would have been exactly the same. Therefore, it is a bit disingenuous—I say this as an anti-Marketeer—to blame for membership of the Common Market and the common fisheries policy for all the problems facing the fishing industry.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I, too, congratulate the Minister on the strength of feeling with which he opened the debate. We hope and believe that that strength of feeling will be matched by deeds when the right hon. Gentleman goes to Brussels. He is a good fighter, but what matters is to win, which will not be easy. I believe that in the end he will have to take unilateral action. I believe that the Common Market will not listen even to the strong arguments adduced by hon. Members of all political parties in the House today.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the views of the fishermen at the time of the referendum. However that may be, I remind him that we on the Conservative Benches at that time urged the Government to include renegotiation of the common fisheries policy and to have it argued out before the referendum. We should then have had some leverage. Now, the Minister's difficulty is that he has very little leverage.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that at the time of the original negotiations he said that he was quite prepared to accept the arrangements made by the then Prime Minister and his cohorts? He was prepared to accept the derogations in the terms laid down then

and was satisfied with the arrangements. Therefore, on what ground does he now raise the question of re-examination, particularly when he did not raise it at the time of the referendum?

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman always goes back to the time when we first negotiated with the Common Market. The question of the zones was then a matter of 12 miles. We were not even thinking about 200 miles. The position was different at the time of the referendum, because we were thinking about 200 miles. The whole position has changed. I have told the hon. Gentleman this on about four occasions. Perhaps he will now read Hansard and look back on the facts.
The hon. Member for Durham spent most of his time demolishing the case for a 50-mile zone but saw some good in the present proposals. I agree with him, because they are conservation measures. As the hon. Gentleman said, what matters today, and what must be impressed on all fishermen in all countries, is that the sea is not an endless producer of fish. Conservation is what matters if there is to be an industry in any of the Common Market countries or any fish on our tables.
The regulations, which are good but wholly ineffective, fall under two headings. There are two regulations dealing with conservation by prohibition. The other four deal with other methods of conservation.
I shall deal first with Documents R /2642 and 2521. Document No. R/2642 allows the French or, I believe, fishermen from Fécamp and some of the small ports on the French coast to catch up to 600 tonnes of herring in certain areas even though the catching of herring is prohibited. Is that the thin end of the wedge? It seems that some coastal States —certainly, this applies to that part of France—have rights even though there is a ban. I think that this could be exploited by the Minister as an example of the EEC already recognising that the coastal State has certain specific rights to fish in waters off its own coast.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Surely, it takes account of the discrete spring spawning herring stock, which is a sub-species quite distinct from the main body of North Sea autumn spawning herring stock—there


are others, in the Mourne and so on—and this is a recognition of the discreteness of the stock rather than of a national interest which may be involved.

Mr. Wall: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. He has great experience of the European Parliament in these matters. I acknowledge that it may really be a matter of spawning rather than an issue of rights held by the coastal State, but I think that the rights of coastal States may come in to a certain extent. At any rate, let us hope that they do, because this should give us the rights which the hon. Gentleman and we on this side are fighting for.
I turn next to Document No. R/2521. This was not accepted by the Commission, as the Minister explained, but what would happen if it had been accepted? It would ban fishing for Norwegian pout up to the end of this year, yet last week in a Standing Committee we passed an order which prohibits the catching of Norwegian pout indefinitely.
There seems to be a contrast between EEC rules and national rules. Who has the real authority? Can we pass rules up to 50 miles or up to 200 miles? There is considerable confusion here—certainly, I am confused—about which rules are the dominant rules, the EEC or the British rules. They are of course both non-discriminatory. I hope that the Minister will deal with that and clear up the confusion.
The Minister spoke of catches in our waters. The Netherlands catches 61 per cent. of its fish in British waters, the French catch over 60 per cent., the Belgians catch 30 per cent., the Germans catch 27 per cent. and the Danes catch 18 per cent. Therefore, it is of considerable importance to us to know who regulates the quotas or the catching of fish and the conservation measures not only in the 50-mile zone but in the 200-mile zone which is now virtually recognised by international law as being the prerogative of coastal States.
I turn now to the other four documents. Document No. R/2147 is a consolidation measure. I note that it allows a by-catch of 20 per cent. by weight of demersal fish in the course of industrial fishing. The House has already expressed its view on industrial fishing, and I am

sure that that view is shared by the Minister. It is wrong that countries should carry out industrial fishing for fish meal and run the risk of catching immature fish when there is not enough fish for human consumption. I hope that every effort will be made to make the Danes see the force of that argument. I hope also that the EEC, which has funds to compensate Danish fishermen, will be able to weigh in with those funds in an effort to reduce the weight of industrial fishing which forms 80 per cent. of the Danish fishing effort.
Document No. R/2434 is the nub of this debate—the proposed catch quotas for 1978. We have already noted— hon. Members on both sides have pointed this out—that there are no losses for third country waters allowed for. This is patently absurd and unacceptable. I have worked out the percentage of catch of the seven different major fish stocks. I shall not weary the House with all the figures, but as I recall them they came to from 18 per cent. to 28 per cent. for the British quota of the total of these seven different types. So the average is about the one given in the Press of 21 per cent., which is clearly unacceptable.
Document R/2428 deals with inspection and records of landing and control of quotas. This is, or could be, an extremely important provision, but it will be useless because the whole proposal is based on catch quotas, and it has been proved by events on the Norwegian coast not long ago that catch quotas are completely ineffective. If the Minister does nothing else, perhaps he can drum into the mind of the EEC the thought that if we are to have quotas at all they must be effort quotas. The Icelanders taught us this lesson. They showed that when the trawlers that can fish in certain areas are named there is no difficulty between the two sides. The Icelandic coastguards could spot the vessels and so eliminate poaching. This is the form of quota that must be introduced in the EEC if we are to have quotas at all, and if the Minister does nothing else but persuade the EEC of that he will have done a good job.
Document R/2429 deals with fishing gear, mesh sizes, by-catches and minimum sizes of fish. The problem is generally accepted to be caused by small vessels of from 40 ft to 110 ft catching


immature fish. In Hull recently a Continental vessel was found to have a fisheries inspector on board. He admitted to the consul of that nation—and he did so in public—that the vessel was fishing with illegal nets, but he said "I cannot stop them from fishing because if I do they will not catch anything and will go out of business". That was a pretty difficult approach for Hull fishermen to swallow.
There were two similar cases. The French trawler "Guinemer" was brought into Hull because it had been fishing illegally. The captain said—and proved—that the orders from the French Government were the orders to which he adhered, but they were not orders that would comply with our regulations. In spite of that incident, six months later another trawler, the "Cap Canaveral", was also found to be fishing illegally, on the same orders from the French Government. If this document does anything, it might clarify international orders both as regards by-catches and mesh sizes.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows about those two cases because he has had correspondence from the people in Hull to draw these matters to his attention. It is useless having rules unless they are enforced. The use of national inspectors acting as international inspectors is a good idea if one can rely on them to maintain the law, but first we must have an internationally recognised Common Market law on these matters. Time and again foreign vessels have been caught using mesh sizes of 42 mm and 47 mm when the legal limit was 75 mm, and this practice must stop.
Taking these documents together it seems that their provisions are moving in the right direction, but they are piecemeal measures and will work only if enforced. They cannot be enforced unless there are effort quotas, and even with those there must be adequate policing. The only effective way in which that can be done is by having Common Market fishery protection squadrons or aircraft.
That is the most economic way to do it. Whether it is possible I do not know, but it is a matter that should eventually be considered. At the moment, the British Fishery Protection Service, aided by Nimrods, is effective in detecting poachers,

but it is difficult to do anything about them. Hon. Members have been out in these Nimrods and seen how effective they can be. When they spot a poacher they radio the Minister's operations room in London. The message goes back to a fishery protection vessel. If she happens to be within 50 miles from the incident there is a chance that it will catch that poacher, but she is probably over 200 miles away, and by the time she arrives on the scene the poacher has completed his catch and disappeared.
There must be a better way of preventing the poaching that now goes on, and I believe that effort quotas are the answer. If each vessel has a number painted on its bridge which can be seen from the air, it can be decided straight away whether the vessel is illegally fishing, the Government responsible for the vessel can be contacted, and a photograph showing the vessel can be supplied as well as the latitude and longitude at which the vessel is fishing.
It has been said constantly that 60 per cent. of EEC fishing is in what we claim to be British waters, yet our allocation is only 21 per cent. That is not acceptable. I was interested in a recent article in The Times which concluded by saying
The truth is that Brussels has realised that to offer the British anything like the compensation they are looking for would imply sacrifices by other member States that would be politically unacceptable.
I think that is true, and it is a measure of the battle which the Minister will have to fight in Brussels next week.
The effect of what has happened to distant water ports such as Hull has been very great. In a period of three years the operational wet fish fleet has declined from 57 to 22; the freezing fleet has so far dropped by only three vessels, but those vessels cost £1 million each.
The nub of the matter relates to the uncertainty for the future. The Minister is now going to Brussels for the fourth or fifth time. I hope that he will come back this time with some positive information so that we may end this uncertainty. We do not want to see these modern vessels having to be sold to owners in New Zealand or Australia, or to see them operating so far from the home ports that will cause disastrous unemployment.
I repeat that it is the state of uncertainty that is causing unemployment, and will cause further unemployment in the distant water ports as long as it lasts. If we do not obtain something on the lines of an exclusive 50-mile zone, the disasters that now face Hull, Aberdeen, Fleetwood and Grimsby will be transferred to the small ports. We must remember that the small ports have a strong voice in this Chamber. Although only half-a-dozen or so Members represent distant water ports, I believe that there are 200 or 300 Members who represent the small ports. I hope that the Minister will remember that and take the thought with him when he goes to Brussels.
I hope that he will fight hard, although he will find it difficult to win a victory. I believe that eventually he will have to take unilateral action, and then negotiate. Unless he declares a 50-mile exclusive zone, I do not think the Common Market will be prepared to enter into sensible negotiations with Her Majesty's Government.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I wish to express my appreciation of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). It was an excellent and thought-provoking speech which made us think on lines away from the traditional areas of debate.
One of the difficulties is that we have been here so often before in our debates. One wonders where exactly the situation will end. The present position reminds me of the long-running Saturday morning serials one used to go to as a youngster. At the end of the episode the hero would find himself in terrible difficulties and just about to be run over by a train. There he would be left until the next visit to the cinema the following Saturday morning. However, on the next visit, lo and behold, he would escape, but by the time one reached the end of the next reel, the hero was back in the same apparently inextricable situation.
My governmental colleagues who deal with these matters in the EEC are continually in that kind of situation. Each time they go to Brussels, we wonder how they will get on. Then, when they return, somehow or other we have managed to escape the quotas put forward by the Commission and the situation appears to

be satisfactory. However, by the time we reach the next fisheries debate there is yet another set of proposals that seem to land us in an even worse predicament than previously.
The difference is that when we used to attend the old cinema serials we knew that the hero would win and that the cause of justice would triumph and that all would be well. Our problem is that in our heart of hearts we cannot believe that, however hard Ministers fight in Brussels, the villains or adversaries will be vanquished. We have the feeling that they will win and that we shall be sold out again. The question is how to get out of this difficulty.
Why is there such tremendous suspicion in the House and the country about the aims of the Commission and the Common Market generally? This is at the root of the matter. People are not so much concerned with the individual proposals. We seem to start from the basic view that the intention of the proposals is to do down our fishermen. There is no doubt that we are not getting our share. There is no disagreement here about the need to preserve and protect the essential interests of our fishmen and the people on land who depend on the fishermen's efforts for their livelihoods.
On the catching side, our fishermen have been gradually edged out or moved out altogether from every traditional fishing area, whether Iceland, Norway, the Faroes, or the Russian seas. We do not see a recognition of this fact in the Commission's proposals. There is nothing offered as a substitute. No account has been taken of the losses of third-country waters.
It may be that something is to be put into the documents which is not there yet. For example, the allocated quotas do not add up to 100 per cent. of total allowable catches. There is a reserve of 10 per cent. to compensate for the loss of third-country waters. However, our share of the catch is so lamentably low that we cannot take the proposals seriously.
We urge the Government to do their best to move towards a sensible common fisheries policy. We must ask whether we can get a sensible policy. There is no doubt that the proposals worked out before we joined the Common Market


were not sensible for us, but we were landed with them. If it is not possible to get a sensible CFP, we may have to bend our minds to beyond a breakdown of negotiations on the policy and where we should stand in relation to EEC rules.
I do not see how we could take unilateral action, other than on conservation, and remain in the EEC. The difficulty is that unilateral action has to be nondiscriminatory. If action is taken for conservation reasons, our fishermen must be kept out as well and processors suffer, too. I think that most people who call on the Government to take unilateral action really mean action to keep everyone else out while allowing our fishermen to stay in. Unilateral action on conservation grounds leads to difficulties not just for the catching side, but for the processing side.
We know, for example, how many firms in the North-East of Scotland have had to apply for the temporary employment subsidy to keep going until they see whether they can get over the period of shortage that has been caused by unilateral action, although I suspect that the effects of the unilateral action may be overstressed in terms of the difficulties they are causing. However, application has to be made for temporary employment subsidy, and that is awarded on a basis of equality of treatment with all other companies which would qualify for TES, and not because those claiming have suffered from the EEC fisheries policy.
I understand that the Government's view is that one cannot take action on conservation lines and at the same time make some special financial provision for those companies that might run into difficulties as a result, and still be within EEC rules. So we are in this difficulty over unilateral action. Where do we go to get a sensible and realistic CFP?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, if I understood what he was saying correctly. He was saying that more than the simple interests of our constituents are dominating the debate. But this is a worrying factor. If we are saying that only the national interest is to dominate, are we saying that only Britain has the right to judge the CFP in terms of national interest? It is no use saying

that it is those horrible Danes, those dreadful Germans, or those awkward Frenchmen—

Mr. Donald Stewart: But it is.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is because they are French, German or Danish that they are being difficult?

Mr. Donald Stewart: I was not saying that those people are being difficult, but that their nations are being difficult. The Danes and the French have not obeyed the quotas. They have nothing to put into the pool and therefore the British Government would be entitled to take unilateral action.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is confirming what I am saying. He is not saying that it is because they are Dutch, French, or Danish that they are necessarily bad, but that it is because they are fishermen from those countries that causes the trouble. However, we must recognise that their Governments are acting just as altruistically from their point of view as we are from ours. We cannot expect them to do otherwise but to fight for what they believe to be the rights of their fishermen.

Mr. Wall: Now that there is de jure recognition that each coastal State has the right to 200 miles, all the European States have the same rights. But our 200 miles happen to cover well over half of all the EEC waters, and therefore if we are to negotiate a common policy we should get a quid pro quo for the amount of fish in our waters.

Mr. Hughes: That is not in dispute. There is no division in any part of the House about our rights to a reasonable quota which compares with our previous historic catch, taking account of changes in third country waters, the needs of our fishermen and so on. But something has to give somewhere if we are to get a CFP. I do not think that it does any good for us always to complain about the Common Market fishermen and their Governments in the terms which are used about them. Their Governments believe that they are fighting in the Council of Ministers for what they regard as their national interests.
Is there any way in which that can be broken down? If they are unwilling to move from their demands—and it goes without saying that their demands are excessive—how are they to be persuaded or otherwise to change their minds in order to give? Unless they give, we reach no agreement.
I accept that it would be thoroughly bad for us to go on continually month after month, debate after debate, with no conclusion being reached. However, if I read aright what is being said in the Press by those on the catching side, it seems that rather than have an agreement that does not suit them, they would rather have the present uncertainty. They believe that in this case nothing is better than something.
I am anxious that we should try to resolve the issue, but I do not know how we can do that. We must begin to apply our minds and ask ourselves whether there is a way in which we can make others understand that what we are concerned about is not merely our own national good—of course we are interested in that—but long-term measures for the Common Market fisheries pool or the waters where the fish are. In this instance we are not arguing about terms. That is what must happen if we mean what we say.
Almost everyone who speaks in this sort of debate, including fishermen, says, "We are interested in conservation. We recognise that it is necessary." I see that the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is smiling. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is agreeing with that at which I am hinting. Perhaps those sentiments are expressed with tongue in cheek.

Mr. Wall: That sort of attitude is expressed followed by "But".

Mr. Hughes: It may be that there is still a hankering for the much-hallowed system of "Hunt where you will: catch as much as you can." We all accept that those days are gone. However, if we are persuaded that conservation is a measure that must become a reality and that it has a relevance not only to ourselves but to our EEC partners, we must find some way of breaking the logjam and making others understand that they cannot go on as they have in the past. We must make it clear that they cannot go on overfishing as they did in their own grounds, as there is very little left.
What efforts can be made to get fishermen to talk together at one common forum? We all recognise the benefit that has arisen from getting both sides of the United Kingdom industry together. The retailers, processors, distributors, trade unions, owners and the man who go to sea are united. It was not easy to achieve that unity. It took a long time before they overcame their suspicions of one another. Those suspicions have not been removed entirely and nor will they ever be completely removed. However, there is some unity of purpose and the beginning of an understanding that the industry depends on its constituent parts.
There is the possibility that if we begun to get that sort of unity within the EEC we should find some glimmering of an understanding among the member States. I believe that the Governments on the Continent are just as much under pressure from their fishermen as our Government are under pressure from British fishermen. It would be strange if it were otherwise.
Is it possible to consider the beginning of a conference of fishermen composed of trade unionists or fishermen in different parts of the EEC leading to an understanding that there is a common problem that must be solved for all our sakes for the future? I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether the Government would be willing to sponsor such a conference, or perhaps to get the Commission to do so. In that way fishermen of different peoples could come together to discuss common problems.
Unless we do that and unless we can begin to achieve that sort of understanding, the suspicions will remain. For instance, there will be the suspicion that the Commission is not serious about trying to solve the problem. It is probably the case that Civil Service bodies take on a form of their own. When they are given a job to do, they will do it irrespective of their own views. However, the suspicion remains that the individual countries do not really want to see a solution to the problem.
It seems that the only solution that they see is a fiddling-out time until the present Common Market fisheries policy comes into being, namely, free access right up to the beaches with no controls.
I hope that that is not the position of individual countries, but the suspicion that that is what they are after bedevils the whole argument.
If that is the argument, we shall get a common fisheries policy which in a sense has no regard for anyone. In that case we should be thinking about how we can operate unilaterally within 200 miles what I regard to be the true meaning of a unilateral policy, which means trying to keep our waters exclusively for our fishermen.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: I add my warmest congratulations to the Minister on his speech, which will be cheered by fishermen throughout the length and breadth of Britain.
I shall refer to some of the proposals contained in the epistle to North Britons from Saint Burke of the Common Market. I am talking of Document R/2434/ 77. If Saint Burke believes that this will be the Bible by which we shall live in 1978 he had better think again. The amount of fish mentioned in this document is greater than the amount that is left in the sea. The amount that he proposes to give to Denmark to grind into fishmeal in 1978 is nothing less than criminal. He proposes to give Denmark 232,000 tons of sprats whereas the United Kingdom is to get only 61,000 tons. He proposes that Denmark shall have 19,000 tons of mackerel and that the United Kingdom shall have 4,500 tons. He proposes that the Danes shall have 252,000 tons of Norway pout while we shall have 20,000 tons.
At present the sprat stocks are 13 to 17 miles off the Tyne. If they were within the 12-mile limit they would be relatively safe but, because they are outside that limit, over 100 purse-seiners are going after them while we are speaking here tonight. These stocks will never reach the 12-mile limit nor will they reach an area where our boats can catch them with seine nets.
We must do something quickly and turn our attention to the damage that is being done by the purse-seiners. The sprat fishing season normally lasts from November to early March and the vessels can bank on getting a reasonable catch

each week. The purse-seiner is so deadly efficient that very few fish in any shoal will get away. It is too deadly to allow that method of fishing free access to any stocks of fish.
I urge the Minister to restrict severely the amount of fish that these purse-seiners can catch. I understand that the Norwegian Government no longer permit the building of purse-seining vessels but this Government are still encouraging them through the payment of grants. This can lead only to the total annihilation of all species of fish that travel in shoals.
It is difficult for me to advocate measures to control purse-seining as I have a great admiration for the efficiency of these boats and the high standards that the crews set while operating often in difficult conditions. A purse-seine net would encompass the whole of St. Paul's from top to bottom, from basement pavement to spire and all the ground on which it stands. It is not difficult even for a laymen to appreciate how many fish may be swimming in such an area of sea. One of the most memorable weeks that I have had was spent aboard a purse-seiner, the "Courage", which was mackerel fishing in the Minches. I cannot praise too highly the skipper, George West and his crew of 12. Their method of going about their work and their dedication were a treat to see, and the rest of the British industry should take a lesson from them. But they were just too efficient and too deadly. Just as we are never allowed, in Britain or anywhere in the world, to have the perpetual match or the everlasting electric light bulb, I doubt very much if we can any longer allow the purse seine to continue to be used freely.
These vessels, with their first-rate skippers, should be encouraged to get after the stocks of the blue whiting which are off our West shores, about 200 miles out. These men have the skill to adapt to the catching of blue whiting. As the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said, perhaps we ought to be encouraging them to go to the South Atlantic, to fish off the Falklands or South Georgia, in the vast stocks of fish still untapped which could be used for the fishmeal industry. But they must have money to allow them to make the necessary structural change to their boats, and to allow them to buy the type of gear that


would be needed to get after such stocks, before they can possibly set off on such a venture. The Government must also look beyond the EEC fishing pond to the places in South Georgia and the Falkland Islands, to see whether the weight of fishing effort in the EEC pond can be transferred to other parts of the world.
To return to the desperate plight of the sprat stocks—which are at this moment being plundered by an armada of boats which are more deadly to our future than anything the Kings of Spain or the Emperors of France ever sent against us—were these sprats within 12 miles of the shore, they would be safe from foreign vessels, but they are in deadly danger. It is absolutely vital that we extend our fishing limits from 12 miles to 50 miles at the earliest possible moment, so that we may manage to save even some of the sprats to breed and reproduce for a further season. Strict conservation laws must be applied rigidly within 50 miles, with the proper policing of catching and the disposal of catches. Many hon. Members have referred to that this evening.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that, if we are speaking about conservation orders, we should really speak about conservation measures within the 200 miles and not just the 50 miles?

Mr. Watt: I was intending to come to that later. I agree that it is absolutely vital that conservation measures be taken throughout the entire fishing pond and not only in the first 50 miles.
My constituents tell me that the Faroese and Norwegian vessels which were fishing for herring off the West Coast of Shetland throughout October were even more deadly than the sprat fishers of this moment. They caught vast quantities of herring, which were landed in Denmark. I should be very pleased if the Minister could tell us what amounts were landed. I have heard of figures as high as 220,000 tons of herring landed in that month. If the fish had been allowed to get within 12 miles, they would have been available to our skippers in the Minches throughout the entire winter.
At the weekend my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I were attending a fishing

function in Banff. We were left in no doubt whatsoever about just how desperate is the situation in the Minches. Many of the skippers who were talking to us have been herring fishermen all their lives. They say that this is the first year in which they have found the Minches to be a desert. There are no fish in the Minches this year. What is the point of the EEC or anyone else giving them a quota on paper if there are no fish to be caught? It is extremely likely that less than half the total quota on paper will be caught.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the pout box. He seems to think that we cannot have the pout box and the 50-miles limit, but I cannot see any reason why this should be so. Of course, we want 50-miles exclusively for the use of our own fishermen, but in areas such as the pout box, and in other spawning areas, it is vital that we have conservation measures throughout the year, or at least at certain times of the year—at spawning times, for example—so that the stocks can be unmolested and left to get on with the job of reproducing themselves.
The position of virtually all the fish stocks is desperate. As well as the longterm regimes that are proposed in the documents, the Government must take emergency measures before the end of the year. I should dearly like the Minister to announce tonight that if he fails to get agreement in the negotiations next week he will come back to the House and say, "As from 1st January 1978 the first 50 miles around our shores will be for the exclusive use of our fishermen." Very strict conservation measures should also be taken within that 50-mile zone.
I know that my name is hated throughout Denmark wherever fishing is talked about. Although I am disappointed about that, I am not repentant. I believe that it is absolutely vital to ask the Danes greatly to limit or, indeed, end their method of industrial fishing. There was a time when the Danes were the most highly respected fishermen of the North Sea. Between the wars the Danish fishermen were regarded as the leaders of the fishing communities. But since 1950 in particular they have switched their methods of fishing. Now, instead of fishing for table fish, they fish virtually exclusively for industrial purposes.
It is vital that the Minister should ask our EEC partners to persuade the Danes to stop all industrial fishing for at least one year. I believe that the Danish fishermen would be better off if they adopted my suggestion. While there would perhaps be fewer boats to pursue the fishing, the Danish skippers would nevertheless need more crew members. While it takes only four men to man a boat in order to catch fish for industrial purposes, the same vessel would need eight or even 10 men to handle fish for human consumption. There would also have to be many more people on the processing side to prepare the fish for the table.
If we are to conserve any of the fish in the EEC pond—the Minister rightly does not like that description—it is vital that we persuade the Danes to close many of their fishmeal factories. That would mean a loss to the owners of those factories, but it is a quantifiable loss. We know how much money they have invested in those factories, and they could be compensated for that loss. We would not need to see all the factories closed because, obviously, the offal of the fish caught for table use and the by-catch would still be available for the fishmeal factories.
I have no quarrel with most of the regulations in these documents But they will not be enough to halt the slaughter that is going on. I want to refer in particular to Article 7 of Document 2429 which says that under-sized fish must be returned immediately to the sea. That means that our fishermen would have to throw every under-sized fish overboard. These fish are dead. They die just five minutes after going on deck. It is an absolute waste because they just feed seagulls. I have said before in this House that British boats are the only ones which the seagulls follow. If these regulations are put through, seagulls will be following every EEC boat.
It is ridiculous to throw these fish overboard. They are dead. Why cannot they be brought in and used for fishmeal? Indeed, why cannot they be brought in so that our fishery officers may see exactly what is being caught? In that way, our scientists and fishery officers would be able to say "You are catching far too much of a by-catch here. You are

killing too many immature fish. Therefore you must stop fishing in that area." If we got that kind of knowledge coming from the fishing industry, we would be in a far better position to regulate the amount of immature fish being caught.
But, as I say, there would still be some fish going through the factories for industrial purposes—dead and immature fish and offal—so that not all the fishmeal factories in Denmark would have to be closed.
There are many more aspects of a detailed nature about which I should like to speak. I have in mind, for example, the proposed introduction of a 90-mm. net. I am pleased that other hon. Members have mentioned that.
I should also like to offer suggestions of ways and means whereby our fishermen could be given a more important rôle in policing our waters. As things are today, it is vital that our fishermen should know which boats are allowed into our waters and which are not so that they themselves might quickly recognise the poachers and tell our fishery cruisers, which could make arrests wherever possible.
Above all, I plead with the Government to declare unilaterally a 50-mile limit to take effect on 1st January. I should like them to prohibit industrial fishing anywhere within 200 miles of our coastline for one year and to work towards getting EEC industrial boats off the North Sea altogether.
I have little doubt that once again I shall be accused of being alarmist. When I first came to this House in February 1974, I was ridiculed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides when I called for a 50-mile limit. My party's voice was not listened to in the referendum about our staying in the EEC when we spoke about the unfairness of the fishing deal.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I ask the hon. Gentleman to correct that. When he first came to the House, his party was shouting for a 100-mile exclusive limit.

Mr. Watt: The Minister is quite correct. We were. However, in order to strengthen the voices of everyone, we reluctantly reduced our demands from 100 miles to 50 miles. We did that to


bring ourselves into line with the voice of the industry at that time. We regretted that change. We still regret it. However, we believe that to have unanimity in the cause we must ask for a 50-mile limit. Who in this House will ridicule us now for making that demand?
I believe that the situation today is more serious than I have stated it, and that it is up to the Minister now to listen to the urgent voice of the industry. It is up to him to find out all that is happening within 200 miles of our shore and to take the necessary action. If this Government will not do it, Scotland will have no alternative but to press on quickly to independence.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Here we go again.

Mr. Watt: An independent Scotland will negotiate a fresh deal. The SNP will not stand by and sec Scotland's industry ruined, and we know that the Scottish electorate back us in our determination.
Let the Minister take this loud and clear message from this House to his EEC colleagues. If Scotland has to leave the EEC, we shall take with us not a 50-mile limit but a 200-mile limit, as Iceland has done, as Norway has done and as any other self-respecting nation which cares for its fishing industry would do.
It is time that this House stopped playing the game according to the rules of cricket advocated by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It is time that we starting playing the game according to the rules of survival, because it is survival we are talking about.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to what I said earlier. If he is saying that he regards the French, the Dutch and the Germans as bad in themselves, it is precisely that point of view which is making it so difficult for them to be prepared to accept our point of view. The kind of chauvenistic nonsense that the hon. Gentleman is talking is doing more damage to the case that we are trying to put forward than anything being done elsewhere.

Mr. Watt: The damage is being done not by the Scottish boats, not by the

British boats but by the gentlemen about whom the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North is talking. If he is prepared to play the rules of cricket and stand back and let other men take all the fish while the stocks are annihilated, let him go ahead. My colleagues and I are not prepared to stand by and see that done.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Watt: I will not give way. We have now no Icelandic fishing, and it is only realistic to realise that we will never again have Icelandic fishing. The Icelanders had to take the action that they took. They were pushed to it. They were at their last ditch. I believe that the British fishing industry has now reached that stage, and it is vital that Her Majesty's Government take the same kind of action. We cannot possibly be pussyfooted or beat about the box on this matter. It is vital that we take urgent and firm action, and that we do so on 1st January 1978 so that there may yet be some future for the skippers, the crews and for the sons and daughters of all those who fish from our shores.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I find it rather difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman in what he has just said, because I am not sure what "pussyfooting" and "beating about the box" are at the same time. But the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) has in the main supported what the Minister said. Those were his opening words. In that I follow him, and in what my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said. The Conservative Party supports the Government in their attempts to defeat these regulations.
I heard with considerable interest the description by hon. Members from Humberside of the state of their ports and the position in Grimsby and Hull. They will recognise, too, that this difficulty is as great in Fleetwood—equally empty markets, equally laid up ships. They have the consolation, however, that they have the benefit of development area status to help them, a status which my port, alas, although having asked for it, has not been granted. We in the deep sea fishing ports are the hardest hit of all those affected by the present fishing situation.
I thought that I had heard some jargon, but until I came to this I had not realised what jargon really meant. I should like the Minister to help me. In the explanatory note—which, I take it, is supposed to be helpful—to R/2428 the fourth paragraph says:
Additionally, the Commission considers that although in the first instance there may be national action, a Community decision is necessary, in order to close a fishery to the fishermen of a Member State"—
it then mentions the word "wh". That can mean "who", "when", or "what"—
the quota allocated to that Member State has been exhausted: only a Community decision is directly opposable to the fishermen in the courts of all Member States.
I have asked two very distinguished lawyers in the House to explain to me what that means and they quite unable to do so.
What I am afraid it may mean—it is very important if anything like these orders were to go into action—is that if a country such as France had fished out its quota, the sovereign Government in control of that quota could not stop it. It could only be done by the EEC, which would mean a gap between us. Therefore, if it was from our waters that fish were being taken, although we knew that the French had fished, we in the United Kingdom could not stop it except by the decree of Brussels. There might be a very serious gap in that time which could increase the French quota and reduce stocks. That is the sort of point on which we should have some explanation.
In considering Document R/2428, I find myself in agreement with the general proposition that the States which have sovereignty of the waters should be those that control the regulations issued by the Community for fisheries within those waters. But it has a side effect in that the bulk of the waters in the Community belong to the United Kingdom. Our conservation effort and enforcement will be much greater than that of other countries. I suspect that we shall have to spend a great deal more money on enforcing conservation rules than any other member of the Community. Has it been suggested that we should be recompensed for the conservation effort within our own 200-mile

limit—an effort which, at the end of the day, will benefit the other members of the Community which fish within that area?
What disappoints me is the very small priority which the documents seem to give to the control of effort, which I think is generally agreed to be by far the most effective way of conservation. There is deep distrust of the quota system. It is subject to cheating. But we know from our experience off Iceland that fishing effort control is effective. I suspect that this reference to control of effort has been put in merely as a sop to the United Kingdom because, when we come to the effort area—the allocation quotas —it has to be done by a quota system, and there is no mention of fishing control by any sense of stock.
In the context of the communication to the Council of Ministers I want to re-emphasise the point, made by other hon. Members whose constituencies, like Fleetwood, have suffered from action taken by Iceland, Norway and Russia, that we need to be compensated for the catches we have lost. There is a gloss in this communication where it says that this loss cannot be quantified. I am certain that it could be. We are told that we are being compensated by the Community in effect because other countries are not now fishing within our 200-mile limit—the Russians, for example.
It is said that it is impossible to help the ports of Fleetwood, Grimsby, Hull and Aberdeen by putting a key into the documents to make provision for them. It is a pity that some of those who drew up this document do not come to see what is happening and the appalling effect that the withdrawal of ships from these waters has had.
When one looks at the quotas themselves one is staggered by the effect that they will have in the Irish Sea, which is just off Fleetwood's door. In the Irish Sea the United Kingdom will get an allocation of 390 tonnes of sole, which is a key fish, but Belgium will get 624 tonnes and the Netherlands 280 tonnes. I cannot see the justice of that.
Another white fish which is important in my port is the haddock. The allocation for the United Kingdom in the area Irish. Sea, Bristol Channel, Western South Iceland and the English Channel is 147,000 tonnes while for the French it


is 735,000 tonnes. It is obvious that the fishing fleet in the Irish Sea will not be British, English or North British.
There is another matter which I have to raise. Is the port of Fleetwood in North Britain? If I were to be told that I was a South Briton I would not be able to hold up my head in my constituency. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point. I cannot see, in anything produced by the Community, any recognition of the fact that we are in North Britain.
There is a tragic situation in the fishing ports. These regulations are a nonsense and the Minister can be assured of our full support when he goes to Europe to negotiate a better deal on our behalf.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). If it is any comfort to him, I was told at an early age that "foreigners" live on the wrong side of a line between the Mersey and the Humber. On that basis the hon. Gentleman escapes the definition of "foreigner". Whether he qualifies as a Northumbrian or North Briton is a different matter. Like me, he is on the periphery of the real England, which makes it a bit difficult for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who always talked about the North of England starting at Watford.
The hon. Member for North Fylde has painted a grim picture. In this he has been joined by my hon. Friends who represent the deep-sea ports. We have heard of the effect over the past few years of the extension to 200 miles of their fishing limits by countries such as Iceland, Norway, Russia, the United States and Japan. This has had a most serious effect upon our fishing fleet and employment opportunities.
The hon. Member for North Fylde mentioned that my area had belatedly been given development area status. That is not a mark of approbation. It is a sign of the unfortunate situation in our community that the Government should have deemed it necessary to give us this status. I am sure that all of those who represent development areas would agree that the sooner they get rid of that title

the better. I have to say, in all fairness, that at the moment it brings us certain benefits. Because of the recent economic recession these have not been apparent. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Regulation 2428 laying down certain measures of control on fishing activity by Community vessels. It is an interesting document. I note that the explanatory note is a translation. I would not have liked to see it in the original and I would be grateful if someone could translate the English translation. The third paragraph reads:
As to the inspection of fishing vessels and their activities, the proposed Regulation establishes such rules as are deemed necessary to ensure that inspection by the Member States within their ports and within maritime waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction is effective and non-discriminatory, while the practices used in inspection are to be made as uniform as is deemed necessary.
What is a circle? A circle is a circle is a circle. What is "necessary"? What regulations should we have? Those regulations which are "desirable"? When we come to the actual regulations we find the phrase "having regard" appears three times and "whereas" appears 16 times. The translation then says that the Council "has adopted this regulation." It goes on to talk about inspection of fishing activities and fishing vessels.
I turn now to quotas, and I want to underline this point so that our friends, allies, enemies, partners or whatever they may be in the Community can understand this. It is not by quotas that our interests and their interests will be protected but by the licensing of fishing effort. This must be stressed time and time again.
It is not a case of being Perfidious Albion and trying to see our way out of something that is unfortunate for us. It is also something in their interest, because it makes the policing of quotas easy, whatever arrangements are made about the eventual catch which it is surmised that people have caught. We shall still be able to police the area effectively.
That is why it is the licensing of fishing vessels and the fishing effort that is important. No adequate definition has been accepted by those who advocate a 50-mile limit and those who advocate a 200-mile limit. What is meant by a 50-mile exclusive zone and what is meant by a 200-mile zone? We need to try to define these terms.
Do we mean 50 miles in which only British vessels can fish? Do we mean exclusive to Britain, or do we mean exclusive only in the sense that that is our area and that we alone will licence who fishes in it, and that therefore we shall perhaps give dispensations and derogations to other countries? This has not been properly defined. There may be advantages if we allow foreign vessels to come within our 50-mile limit if there is a degree of reciprocity and we are allowed to take part in operations elsewhere. We must define what we mean.
I would define "exclusive limit" as meaning that the littoral State decides which vessels, how many and at what times they will fish within that limit. I define it as meaning that we control who fishes in that area. They may be British vessels or other vessels, depending on the exigencies of the case and the mutual balance of advantage between the nations involved. If we are satisfied that this is what exclusive means, what do we mean by the area from the 50-mile limit to the 200-mile limit? Is this merely an area that we are policing on behalf of the Community to see that agreements made within the Commounty and with third countries are enforced? Or do we mean that the 200 miles is an extension of what we are claiming within the 50-mile limit? If the latter is the case, I do not think that we have any chance of a common fisheries policy.
If we are saying that between 50 miles and 200 miles we shall share or that we shall adopt a policing rôle on behalf of the Community, trying to see that the agreements made within the Community and with the Community by third parties are enforced, we have a reasonable definition about which we can talk to our Community partners. But with either 50 miles or 200 miles we cannot refuse to define precisely what we mean. There is a great deal of confusion not only in our relations with foreign parties or other countries within the Community but with our own fishermen because of the lack of a clear definition.
Hon. Members have a duty to say what they mean by a 50-mile exclusive zone and what they mean by 200 miles. Until we know the exact terms that we are using for our definitions, and on which we are seeking to fight this cause, we are

in a most difficult position. We could be accused of hypocrisy towards our own fishermen, because we use one definition and they think that we are using another. We must be most careful about this.
Whether they voted for or against joining the Community and our continuing Membership—I voted against—hon. Members also have a duty to say that we shall be in a most drastic situation in 1981 if we do not come to an agreement. Whether we like it or not, under the terms of our accession, which Governments of both parties accepted, people will then have a right to fish up to one another's shores. In that sort of international anarchy it is not only the fishing industry that will suffer but all the fishing communities within the member countries of the EEC. Therefore, it is not only in our interests but in the interests of the whole Common Market that a proper, sensible agreement shall be achieved. Those are the basic ground rules.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) is not present, because I believe that people can be carried away by the exuberance of their own case. With a degree of self-righteousness, they can lose a great deal in their froth and emotion without seeing that what we are seeking to preserve is a viable, positive fishing industry in this country which will serve the interests of our nation and many parts of the Community, which will maintain not only the fishing communities in our great deep-sea ports or former deep-sea ports but the scattered fishing communities in many parts of our islands. That is the rôle of the fishing industry. It is what our Ministers must achieve when they go to Brussels.
Therefore, it is essential that we should have our sights precisely upon what is right for our industry. It is a matter not of speaking of so many tonnes from the North Sea, the Irish Sea or the Celtic Sea compared with what the French, Danes or other's have, but of what has been achieved to maintain our viable position and our dominance, as well as a realisation of what our 200-mile zone has given to the Community.
There is a duty also on the Commission and on the Government to achieve satisfactory compensation for those areas which have suffered not as a result of


Community policy but as a result of policies of third countries—Russia, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the United States and Canada—which have driven from what we have regarded as traditional fishing grounds the deep-sea vessels sailing, in particular, from Humberside and Fleetwood and also from Aberdeen and other smaller ports. I say that with no disrespect to Aberdeen. I am speaking merely in terms of its fishing effort. We must ensure that either the Commission or our own Government—in my view, it should be our own Government—find adequate compensation for them. In so far as we still have a freezer fleet, we must ensure that it is properly worked, properly used and properly compensated.
In this context, it is important for us to talk not just in terms of compensation for the owners of vessels and the companies which have controlled vessels, since in many ways they have been overcompensated, they have had their subsidies and they have written off the value of their vessels. There must be proper compensation for the men who have been made and will be made unemployed. Moreover, the unemployed are difficult to trace, because in the deep-sea ports the industry has been a casual industry, with men employed from voyage to voyage, and unemployment benefit used to supplement what in other industries would have been the proper function of the employer.
It is our duty to ensure that, whatever shape the industry takes, we get rid of its casual nature. We must ensure that those who earn their livelihood at sea—those who are neither skippers nor share fishermen—are not forced to seek succour and consolation in drink but are given a secure future in the industry, properly looked after, properly controlled and properly regulated. It would be a sad day if any Government were to look away from some of the social problems attached to the fishing industry and security in it and seek a remedy in savage penal legislation, paying attention to the symptoms rather than the disease.
We must ensure that we have a fishing industry which, whatever comes out of the Community and whatever arrangement is made, can offer a person working in it security for himself and his family, with opportunities for advancement and good industrial conditions, without re-

course to what is being suggested in some quarters, that is, penal clauses to replace sound industrial relations and proper living and working conditions.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shaw: I shall be brief because hon. Members who have already spoken have ranged fully over this important subject. I find myself in unusual agreement with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). I fully support him in what he says about the human problems which have been created by the new situation in the fishing industry. I share to a certain extent the fears which he has expressed in speaking of his constituency. There is no doubt that his constituency and others in Hull and similar ports with deep-sea trawlers are taking the immediate brunt of the present problem. Nevertheless, there are fears throughout the industry, not just in any one sector of it, since the problems of one sector sooner or later affect the conditions of the others. As time goes on, the trouble spreads right round the coast.
It has been rightly said that the present state of affairs did not exist when we first entered the Common Market. Indeed, from the standpoint of my constituency, the boundary was moved outwards at that time, and therefore help was given.

Mr. Prescott: I constantly hear the argument used by Conservative Members that they did not know that there might be 50-mile or 200-mile limits. That was freely predictable, and many of us in this House predicted it. Even if I accept the basis of the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman, the fact is that under the fishing agreement signed by his party even the 12-mile area would have been free and accessible for fishing in 1981. He cannot duck the argument.

Mr. Shaw: I cannot agree with that. It meant that in 1981 matters would have to be renegotiated, and therefore it would have been open to us to say whether we agreed to what was being proposed.

Mr. McNamara: There was no veto.

Mr. Shaw: Some of those who are to speak later in the debate will be able to give a more personal experience than I can of what was involved, but that is my understanding of the situation.
Certain it is that we have a new situation. The problem that faces everyone is not just a definition of areas where we are allowed to fish, and where we are not. The problem is very much whether there will be anything for which to fish. We are considering security of jobs in the future, but there will not be any secure jobs unless conservation has been properly carried out because the fish have to be there before fishing can take place.
In this new situation we are undoubtedly the ones who have lost most. I agree with those who have said that the situation facing the distant-water boats that have been moved out of more distant territories has to be taken into account in any negotiations and in making allocations for the future. Not only have we lost most, but we have most of the fish that is in the waters under consideration. In addition, we shall have to do most of the control work to watch over these waters.
All those factors should rank far more importantly than they seem to have done in the negotiations that have taken place so far. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will bear all those points in mind when he enters the negotiations and, as everybody has said tonight, we support him in the work that he will be doing. I agree that what we seek in all this is a fair and enforcible licensing system, because, clearly, the quota system has been proved to be inadequate.
I have only two further points to make. First, I want to emphasise the deep concern felt by my fishermen and my inshore federation about the future, and in particular about some of the effects that may flow from these regulations.
With regard to the 50-mile exclusive zone, I am certain that we cannot afford to have a narrow zone. When it comes to conservation, the speed of boats and the efficiency of the equipment used is such that any control must take place over a wide area, otherwise we shall not have a chance of catching the boats that are doing the damage and the poaching.
I believe that to talk of narrow areas of supervision or control is entirely un realistic. I believe, too, that to have a number of boundaries between one country and another at frequent intervals will make the job that much more difficult as people slip from one boundary to the other. Since it appears that we shall have to carry out most of the supervision, we must insist on these wide exclusive zones.
We hear a great deal about scientists' forecasts of conditions. My experience gained through talking to fishermen in my constituency is that very often they can tell what will happen in their territories years before the scientists reach their conclusions. What is more, what those fishermen say usually turns out to be true.
When we discuss matters relating to the size of net meshes and other conservation measures, we must remember the difficulties that beset those who fish for herring. The fishermen in my constituency have for many years sought a ban on herring fishing for a period in order to apply some measure of conservation. I believe that these men and their organisations should always be listened to with the closest possible attention when regulations or legislation are being considered.
I reinforce all that has been said by others this evening, and particularly the fact that many fishermen's organisations have the utmost fear of proposals relating to the size of net mesh. I accept what the fishermen tell me because what they have told me in the past has turned out to be true. I hope that we shall not simply rely on the words of the scientists but will give due regard to the word of the practical seamen who spend a great deal of their lives at sea. Their fathers have been at sea before them, and often the boats are handed down from one generation to another. Fishing is their livelihood, they know what goes on at sea, and they often know these things more surely than do the scientists.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I wish to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Shaw), and particularly his remarks about conservation policies. I have the utmost respect for the work of our scientists, and particularly those institutes whose work consists in collating information. However, that work is incomplete unless it is married up with the observations and views of experienced fishermen. I know that the Secretary of State acknowledges that there is no substitute for the experience of those who have to undertake fishing as a job.
I hope that, in co-operation with our EEC partners, we are now moving forward to a new stage of conservation. I believe that in the various negotiations that take place the industry often feels that its views are being disregarded or not being taken fully into account. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend's words about the views of ordinary fishermen will be noted.
Several hon. Members have emphasised the importance of fishermen in policing various conservation measures. I believe that there will be a greater willingness to carry out that policing activity in the industry if those fishermen feel that they are being consulted in the formation of those policies.
I intend to speak briefly, because many of the points I intended to make have already been dealt with. I wish to endorse what the Minister said in opening the debate. The right hon. Gentleman takes with him to next week's negotiations the best wishes of the House and, I hope, a reinforcement from the House of his determination to carry forward the purposes that have been discussed so fully in the debate.
I emphasise yet again the ineffectiveness of quotas. I do not intend to go into detail because this subject has already been discussed so much, but I do not see anything in the change from the regime that we had under NEAFC to the regime under the EEC to indicate that quotas will necessarily be any better or more enforceable than before. In view of our experience, it is important to bring home to ou0r Common Market

partners that we have to consider a different system, namely the individual licensing of boats, which is the unanimous view of the House and all those with experience of the workings of NEAFC. Although the documents are couched in terms of quotas, conservation will not be effective until we institute a proper and effective licensing system.
There is a lack of recognition in the documents of the sacrifices that United Kingdom fishermen have made in fishing in third country waters. I shall say no more about that because it is obviously something about which the Minister feels very strongly.
There has been talk in the documents and elsewhere in the Community about the effect of some conservation measures and quotas. It is suggested that where our fishermen are suffering and have to give up fishing and look for other occupations, some form of compensation might be paid. In some fishing villages in Scotland, particularly on the North-East Coast and in the West, that solution will not do. We are talking about people for whom fishing is not just an economic occupation, but a way of life. Their fathers, grandfathers and generations before them have all gone to sea. Talking to the wives and mothers in these villages, I find that many would like their men to leave the sea because of the dangers involved. Some do leave, but it is amazing how often they go back. It is in the blood. Offering them financial compensation will not work. It is entirely against the nature and character of people living and working in these places. We must bring home that point to the Common Market partners as strongly as possible. Offering such fishermen compensation would he like trying to buy their birthright. They will not sell.
We are debating particular conservation measures which flow from the documents. We have been in the forefront of conservation measures. Some have been in effect for a considerable period and I had hoped that we should be seeing measurable results as a consequence of those measures in terms of species reappearing, appearing in larger quantities or, through such measures as the pout boxes, the appearance of fish for eating. That is a view that certain fishermen have expressed.
I should like to know what monitoring has been carried out to gauge the effect of these conservation measures. If we could show by the conservation measures we have introduced—such as the pout box—that we are having some success, that certain species are returning to these areas, and that a new future is being built up for our fishing industry, that would strengthen immensely the bargaining power of our Ministers in the Common Market negotiations.
There is another effect of the conservation orders and the documents. The Secretary of State is well aware of the effects not only on the fishermen but on the fish processing industry. The Government have been responsive to the needs of the firms in the North-East of Scotland, particularly the herring processing firms, by way of temporary employment subsidy and so on. But will the Minister extend his sympathy in this interim period to the firms that process the white fish? They are now facing equal difficulties.
Hitherto the problems were in the larger firms which employed large numbers of people and which could speak with a loud voice. However, in many parts of Scotland, particularly in the City of Aberdeen, many of the family businesses engaged in processing are being affected, but they do not employ the necessary minimum of 10 people to qualify under the TES scheme. In considering the difficulties of the fish processing firms, I urge the Secretary of State, therefore, to bear in mind those in which perhaps only two or three people risk becoming redundant. The effect of the current situation on a number of small firms, say, in Aberdeen, Peterhead or elsewhere, can be just as great as the effect on one larger firm which may be making 50 people redundant.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point which as he knows has been raised in the city of Aberdeen. He will be glad to know that I have taken this up with the Government.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am aware of that, but I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I, too, represent part of the city of Aberdeen, and that may surprise him I have as constituents those

who work in and run these firms. All those hon. Members who represent the city of Aberdeen, as I do, have been making this point strongly to the Government.
I urge the Secretary of State to bear in mind also the needs of both the larger vessels and the smaller vessels. The former we call the inshore vessels, although they work far from inshore. The main catch effort is in the boats that go further afield and have the adaptability to move around the coast of Scotland and go as far as the Norwegian banks. The men on these boats are the people who tend to make up the office bearers and representatives of the fishing organisations.
Will the Minister also bear in mind the needs of the smaller boats which cannot go so far from the shore and which, because of the size of the vessel, cannot move around the coast of Scotland to fresh fishing grounds to the same extent.
There are three proposals in the documents. If the mesh size is increased, the boats fishing in deeper waters are not affected nearly as much as those fishing of the part of the coast that is represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), off the coast of Northumberland, or those fishing in areas such as the Moray Firth. An increase in the size of the mesh will have a great effect on those fishing for sprats. It will have a lesser effect on the economic viability of the deep water vessels than on the smaller boats that work closer to the shore. I am sure that that would be confirmed by the inspectors.
Equally, if the amount allowable of by-catch is reduced, that could destroy sprat fishing in inshore waters such as the Moray Firth.
We must also consider the effect of steaming with only one set of nets on the vessel. That may be all right for vessels going further out, but different considerations apply to the smaller vessels that do not have the same fishing opportunities and scope. Very often the smaller boats will carry two sets of net. If sprat fishing does not prove worth while, they may change to prawn fishing at certain times of the year.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take these matters into account and to give


consideration to the smaller vessels. The total catch and the effect that they have on the depletion of fish stocks in infinitely less than with the larger vessels that go further afield. In any conservation measures we must give special consideration to the smaller inshore vessels.
Finally, I make three short points. I believe that we have all been encouraged in the House and in the industry by the unity of agreement reached at the Dublin Conference a week ago, to which the right hon. Gentleman sent a telegram of support, at which the Minister responsible for fisheries of the Eire Government spoke and at which representatives of the fishing industry in Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland took part. I believe that that bodes well for the future. I hope that we can carry forward that degree of unity in the negotiations next week.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman must remember that the outcome of the negotiations will eventually be put to the test in the House of Commons. If we do not have a satisfactory solution presented to us, it seems clear that what is proposed will not be endorsed at the end of the day. I know that the right hon. Gentleman realises that, and I hope that he will take that message to his colleagues.
Finally, we must consider the consumer. We have talked about fishermen and fish processers, but so often we have forgotten the consumer. If we do not get a solution to the problems under a common fisheries policy, it is the consumer and the housewife who will suffer. That is well illustrated by an article that appeared in the Aberdeen Press and Journal on 25th November. It shows that with the problems of conservation there has been an increase in the price of fish. From 2nd October to 5th November 4,316 tonnes were landed at Scottish ports making about £.1·5 million. The article then states:
Last year during the same period, nearly three times the quantity was landed—11,072 tonnes—but made only ·10,598 more than this year's alarmingly low landing total…proof that prices have gone well and truly through the roof!
That is one of the consequences of this policy. It is an inevitable temporary consequence until we get conservation right. Unless we get it right, and unless we can

protect fish supplies in future, it is not only the fishermen and fish processers who will suffer but the housewives. It is for the housewife that the right hon. Gentleman goes to the negotiations, as well as for all the other interests.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. John Corrie: First, I must apologise to the two Front Bench speakers for not being here when they spoke. I was in Brussels discussing in the regional committee how best to spend the money from the regional fund in areas where there will be cut-backs in fishing. I was ensuring that compensation will go not only to boat owners but to the work forces on shore.
I have the unenviable task of taking these documents through the agriculture committee in December. I do not look forward to that task, but the amount of co-operation from the other countries is surprising. I cannot imagine that any agreement on any particular policy will arise on 5th-6th December, so that the discussion in the European Parliament in December will still come before anything has been finally decided.
The Danes have been fairly hard done by in the House today, but there is a much greater understanding from the Danes now than there has been for some time. They are making an effort to cut back their fishing industry to fit in with Community policy.
It is unusual perhaps for a Member of the Opposition to compliment a Member of the Government side but I congratulate the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). He has done a very good job in the Fisheries Committee, which he chairs. We can be proud of his efforts on behalf of this country. He would be the first to admit that he did not know a great deal about fishing when he first came to Parliament but there are few now who know more about it than he. He was an anti-Marketeer, and probably still is, but he is always fair when discussing policy.
As the hon. Member said, fishermen can no longer be freelance hunters in the sea. It is too late to lay the blame at any door. We must now look to the future. One must be careful when discussing exclusive zones or the exclusive control of zones. We must remember that although we may draw lines in the


sea showing where we may fish and where no one else may fish, we cannot tell the fish where they should go.
Most herring stocks off the East coast of Scotland pass through Danish waters. If we have exclusive rights to fish round our own waters and the Danes have the same rights, they could take out all the herring from the North Sea as it passes through their waters. The hon. Member for Durham and I have been having talks with the ICES in Denmark.
Although the scientists are considered to be the wrong people with whom to discuss these matters, in the last few weeks they have been saying not that the fish are no longer there but that the balance has shifted by the over-fishing of herring. They say that there is an increase in the numbers of other fish such as sprat, Norway pout, sand eel, blue whiting and field culling. If we are not careful and do not take these fish out of the water there will be no room for herring to return to those waters because food that is necessary for young herring is being eaten by other species of fish.
It is difficult to talk of a 50-mile zone in conservation terms because the fish live outside that area. We must look at the possibility of a 200-mile zone and beyond that. At certain times of the year it is safe to fish in the pout boxes and at other times it is not safe to do so. There are certain depths for fishing which would cut down the by-catch.
To listen to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), one would think that every single fisherman in the whole of Scotland was a member of the Scottish National Party. That is not the case. We have had delegation after delegation of fishermen at the EEC Assembly and at the committees in Brussels over the last two years, and many of the men are certainly not SNP members. Many of them get down to very serious discussion. I think that we should be very careful not to bring too much emotion and feeling into the whole subject. If we do we can easily lose sight of the ultimate end.
We have to watch that if we have an exclusive use limit within our 50 miles, or whatever we decide on, we do not create problems among our own fishermen. If the Scots fishermen start going down south and taking the mackerel from

the Cornish fishermen, the Cornish fishermen will be upset.
There is another problem that is cropping up, and the Danes have been complaining about it. I refer to the supplying to third-country factory ships straight from British boats around our coasts. I would almost go so far as to say that when this happens these ships should be banned from our waters. Every ton of fish put off a British boat on to a third-country factory ship means fewer shore jobs for our people. It also means that we cannot see what type of fish is being caught or monitor the amount being caught.
We have to encourage the exploration of new species for deep-sea boats, because I believe that that industry is dead from the point of view of British waters. There is simply no room in British waters for the large deep-sea boats, and we have to find other areas for them throughout the world.
We have to watch what we are doing within the industry itself. It will only exacerbate the problem if we go on giving grants and subsidies to build bigger and better boats to catch more and more fish and at the same time, at the other end of the scale, give subsidies to lay up or even destroy boats. That is a vicious circle.
Most of my other points have been covered; therefore, I will not go into them further. I am sure that when we get a common fisheries policy, as we shall, no one will be happy, but I believe that when that time comes the fishermen of Britain will play their part in any agreement reached.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: I wished to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I might speak for a very short time in making one or two remarks about the debate, to most of which I have listened. I was originally under the impression that it would finish at 10 p.m.
It has been a remarkable debate for a number of reasons, one of them being the conversions that we always find whenever we have these debates. I am bound to say also, having listened to a number of the speakers, particularly from the Conservative Benches—although it does not occur exclusively in that area—that there has been a twisting of the facts.
History is being written in regard to the fishing agreements and the Community itself. In that respect I want to try to nail what I think is an untruth concerning the signing of the agreement, before Britain's entry into the Community, by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He has admitted that we tend to rewrite history in the European Assembly when we discuss fishing policy. When the agreement was signed, irrespective of whether one considered that the limits were to be extended to 50 or 200 miles, it was clear then that the area up to 12 miles was to be made available to all ships of the Community after the period 1981–82. The argument about not being able to foresee it does not stand up when we bear in mind that the agreement was to allow all Community ships into the area, right up to the beach. It is a little dishonest to suggest that it was something different when it was signed at that time.
I also marvel at the amount of unity that is shown with regard to our Ministers. Our Ministers are to be congratulated on the efforts they have made in this difficult area where they cannot use the veto because that was the agreed policy when we went into the EEC. I do not know how long that unity will last. However, I have no doubt that that unity will depend on the definition of "exclusive" that will have to be determined by those involved in the negotiations.
Nevertheless, these regulations are an advance, particularly in the area of conservation. But we must decide what to do about net sizes and such matters. By becoming regulations these matters will be passing into Community law which member States will observe. Whether we like it or not, these regulations are a better way of enforcing conservation than the joint agreement which previously existed among the international fishery organisations. The regulations are clearly an advance in that regard.
The regulations will become legally binding, particularly on Community boats and third world boats which enter the areas and waters ruled by the sovereign power of the nation States. They are an advance towards coastal control—an important factor that we have always advocated. They are a recognition of the power of the coastal States themselves to enforce the powers of conservation.
The regulations give a derogation to the French to fish for herring immediately outside their port areas while limiting the size of the vessels involved as well as the effort to fish. At the same time they recognise that there must be some kind of scheme for the coastal State to fish resources immediately outside its own port area.
All these are advances towards the recognition that the coastal State will have a rôle to play. This was generally recognised by the United Nations in the Law of the Sea negotiations and it was recognised much earlier with regard to the exploitation of mineral wealth. I believe that the Opposition is confusing this with fish areas, which are not the same thing. We are discussing the way in which the coastal State should control different forms of wealth, whether it is mineral wealth or fish.
This gives force and recognition to the argument that I have advocated as a kind of compromise solution—that of maintaining the coastal rights control while recognising that we are in a Community which gives to every coastal State some kind of say in how quotas are determined. It is in the recognition of exclusive control that the difficult problem lies.
I personally believe that the Government will not take a unilateral stand. If they did they would be in a much stronger position, but in the context of the negotiations and the trade-offs that will be involved, the Government are hardly likely to take a unilateral stand on this issue.

Mr. Watt: The hon. Gentleman talked about trade-offs. This is a real fear among fishermen who think that there will be some kind of trade-off with Britain giving up her reasonable demand for an exclusive 50-mile zone. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House some examples of the trade-offs that he has in mind?

Mr. Prescott: One area where there has been a certain amount of trade-off is the JET project which we fought to have based in the United Kingdom. I am sure that Ministers can give many examples within the agricultural and fishing areas where in order to secure one objective they give way on another. I am sure that other hon. Members have


better examples than that which I have given. But it is true that there is a considerable amount of trade-off. That is one of the essential conditions of Community negotiations. However, we must make up our minds. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take a unilateral stand on this issue.
I can well understand the negotiating positions of Governments and people making statements to that effect. But, at the end of the day, those of us who are concerned with whatever might be the agreement—and I am more concerned with that than with the negotiating stance—will be presented with a compromise of the kind which I have advocated and which embodies the principles that I suggested earlier in my speech.
If that is the case, it raises the issue of what is "exclusive". I always used to think that it meant exclusive—that is, that a single nation had sole rights in a given area, be it 50 miles or 25 miles. I always understood that the people who advocated that cause believed that it was what it really said—exclusively for them. Now we hear from the Opposition Front Bench—and I do not disagree—about having forms of controlled derogations, with the ships of other nations which have fishing agreements with us—Community countries or third parties—having some right to come into waters which are designated for exclusive control.
If that is the definition—and a number of hon. Members have spelt out that that is what they think "exclusive" means—that is probably where we shall end up. But if that is the final outcome, I wonder whether the differences revealed in the definition of exclusivity will break this unity which seems so binding in fishing agreements. We must wait and see.
From my own point of view, the general regulations at the moment show an advance in those areas which I have indicated. Where matters are much more controversial and where a certain amount of confusion seems to arise is the rôle of quotas in all this.
I have the feeling from a number of the speeches in this debate that hon. Members believe that quotas are no good at all and, therefore, that they must be thrown out. But clearly whatever system is brought in will have quotas. The argu-

ment is not that quotas are no good. It is that they are not enforced or that they are not working. Obviously that is an argument against quotas. But even if we had an exclusive system which we were controlling, as Iceland has, and we had our 200 miles, were not in the Community and had a far better fishing deal, which would be the position, it is obvious that quotas would exist. So I do not think that we should go along with those who say that quotas are useless.
Quotas are an essential part of conservation. It is how they are enforced and what mechanisms of control are used which are important, and part of all that must be a definition of how much we take out, to whom it shall be given, and how many vessels will be involved. That is at the heart of what is a quota system. We have to be clear in our minds about that.
One matter about which we are united is that the present quota system is not acceptable or even equitable to our position in this matter, and I am glad that the Minister made it clear that he did not accept the situation. But, again, we hear many people talk as though we were greater conservers than other nations. It is my experience that we have as many pirates in Britain as there are in Europe and that it is just as difficult to get them to observe conservation measures as it is in Europe.
There are examples to prove that this is so. One which is extremely pertinent at the moment is that of the Russians fishing for mackerel. Vessels, even from my area, are going down and, because it is profitable at the moment, fishing out all the mackerel and pumping it into Russian ships, having been propagandising for heaven knows how long to get Russian vessels out of these waters.
I hope that the Minister will give some indication whether it will affect our negotiating position vis-à-vis third-party countries. Areas such as Humberside are greatly dependent on the agreements that we get with third parties because we are traditionally dependent on the types of fish that we get from those third-countries' waters.
This is one of the anomalies, especially for Humberside. Despite all the concern for inshore fishing, there is no area being hit harder by fishing agreements, be they


with Iceland, the Community or anywhere else. It is the one area which has been thrashed because it is the area which has concentrated most on what the Community call "artisan" fishing. If that is the expression used to describe those involved in small inshore boats, I do not know what we should call those who work on the deep-freeze boats. They are concentrated on Humberside. To that extent, Humberside is a special case.
The taking of mackerel in the way I have described threatens the stocks of areas of the South. We have evidence in Hull that boats have been catching the mackerel so fast that it has had to be stored in the streets by the ton. It is no use attacking industrial fishing and then having to stack fish in the streets because the warehouses are so full. In such circumstances, it is a little hypocritical to talk about our concern for conservation.
Twelve months ago, we told the Minister that we would have to have special agreements for the North of Britain. I thought that I came from the North, but by the new definition in these documents, I do not. But that definition says a lot, because once again Humberside is particularly hard hit. There was a hard-fought-for recognition in the Community that there were certain areas which were in a specially difficult position and should be given special compensation. Such recognition has been given to Scotland and Ireland, but England's fishing areas have got nothing. We are told that whatever agreements we get with Russia, Norway and other countries will help to recompense us, but the compensation for Scotland and Ireland is to come from third-countries' shares, so I do not know what will be left for Humberside.
Presumably, agreement will be reached within the next 12 months, or possibly after the French General Election. I hope that my right hon. Friend has a number of long-term plans, particularly for the crisis on Humberside. A lot can be done. Detailed negotiations are now going on.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to draw together the people of Humberside, to look at education, training and maritime connections, and build a centre of excellence on Humberside for fishing. Quite a lot of Common Market money will become available for compensation,

and it should not be shovelled, as always in the past, into the owners' pockets, from some of whom already we hear such talk as "If we are to have 200 miles, give us £2 million". That is a deplorable attitude.
My right hon. Friend should bring up the excellence of Humberside fishing and help it make its contribution not only to Britain and the Community but to the Third world, where many countries want to develop their fishing fleets. I hope that such long-term thinking is going on in the Ministry. I am always having to say "This is bad for Humberside". I hope that the Ministry is looking at what can be done substantially to change the situation and to end the bad times on Humberside.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: We have had a comprehensive and wide-ranging debate—an unacrimonious debate apart from the skirmishes here and there about the Common Market, and the ritual rantings from the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) about how the SNP is not going to get slaughtered at the next election as everyone else believes.
I enjoyed the robust speech by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I gather that he is not present now because he has a rather nasty touch of influenza. We all hope that he will be fighting fit again to put the case for the House when he gets to the Common Market again next week.
Much more important than the amiable nature of the debate has been the fact that opinion has been almost completely united behind the right hon. Gentleman in saying that these regulations are not acceptable as a package. They are not acceptable to the House, the Government, the Opposition and all sections of the British fishing industry. Not only do we have a unity of view on this within the United Kingdom, but last week's meeting in Dublin showed that the Irish are united with us. I hope that those in the EEC with eyes to see and ears to hear will realise that they must recognise the strength of the unanimity in this country.
The principles underlying this package will not work. It is not just a question of the details. The basic point is that the EEC must realise that no Minister could get this package through the House


of Commons. The EEC will have to think again. The fallacy at the heart of the package is the present system of quotas. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, it is not a question of being against the principle of quotas as such but of being against the principle of quotas as they appear to be enshrined in the package. The package is unfair. Even if it were not, it would be unworkable.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has pointed out that we are talking not about EEC waters but about British waters which happen to be in the EEC. We therefore have a right to say how those waters shall be carved up. We are not prepared to hand them over without objection to the EEC and give them the right to say how they will dispose of the fish in our waters.

Mr. Mark Hughes: For those of us who sit in the European Assembly the difficulty is that we did just that—we handed over these waters. What we are trying to do, whether Conservative, Liberal, SNP or Labour, is to pull back from a catastrophe to a near tragedy. That is not a very glorious position but it is the reality.

Mr. Sproat: I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Assembly by pointing to what the majority of British people believe. I hope that this will be used as ammunition when they get to the European Assembly. They should say that they are not prepared to accept the diktat of the EEC. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) made the point that most of what has been said in the debate has been said before. This is precisely because these are such strong points. We must emphasise why we cannot accept this package.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and others pointed out that the quotas being put forward in this package appear to take no account of the fact that British fishermen have lost the most valuable fishing grounds off Iceland, the Faroes, in Norwegian waters, and in the Barents Sea, in Soviet waters. I understand that about 20 per cent. of our former catch has been taken from us in this way. It is incredible and intolerable that the European Community should

have the nerve to tell us what our quota should be without taking account of the fact that 20 per cent. of our catch has been taken away from us.
It is obvious, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said, that the EEC should not say that it intends to give the British fishing industry only about 21 per cent. of the quota when we provide 60 per cent. of the fish. It shows remarkable insensitivity. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that Common Market countries have political pressures placed on them, just as we do, and that may be true. None the less, there is a limit to the pressures that we can accept. It seems insensitive to say that we should accept only 21 per cent. of the quota because the Danes, Germans and Dutch have political pressures on them.
The present quota system is not backed up by a proper licensing system. This key point was made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and my hon. Friends the Members for North Angus and Mearns, and Scarborough (Mr. Shaw). We know from the example of Iceland that licensing works. Unless we have some sort of licensing, the quota system will not work.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly said that certain hon. Members should not suggest that other countries are no worse than us, and that there is no reason to suspect that the French, for example, are worse than we are. In fact, there is every reason for thinking that. The British fishing industry would be very sceptical if it were told that the French were not breaking the regulations. It may be unfair to suspect that the French are breaking the regulations, but that is what the British fishing industry believes, and I think that the industry is right.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) pointed out that we have recently had the example of the French grabbing disastrously more than their share in the North-East Arctic. It may have been partly the Germans, but everyone believes it was the French. The French were given a specific quota and broke that quota shamelessly. As a result, British fishermen have suffered. I am not plucking Chauvinistic figures out of the


air. The French defined those quotas. The British fishing industry should be extremely sceptical. I shall be as polite as I can about the tactics and the honour of certain of our Continental partners.
We had the even more extraordinary case six months ago of a French skipper who was caught and, instead of having 20 per cent. by-catch and 80 per cent. trash, it was exactly the reverse. He had the nerve to present to the British authorities an official French document which said that as long as he had 20 per cent. Trash he could catch 80 per cent. table fish. This was not just a case of one skipper defying the agreement. The official French document appeared to be defying the whole concept which other members of the Common Market have agreed.

Mr. Wall: The position was even worse than that. A French trawler was arrested and brought to Hull six months before the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. The French Government were therefore aware, six months before the incident he describes, that their rules did not coincide with ours.

Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has emphasised my point that the French authorities appear determined to get round, by fair means or foul, what the rest of the Community has agreed. This accounts for the scepticism that the British fishing industry rightly feels.
Of course, we accept that there is progress here. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said this in his splendid speech, and other hon. Members said so as well. These are conservation measures, and in so far as they go a certain way towards conservation, we accept them. In particular, we are interested in the derogation measures for the French fishermen in regard to herring. I hope that when he goes to Brussels the Minister will point out that the Community is here granting the principle of the coastal State's having the right to say how the fish off that country shall be dealt with. I know that it is a small amount and a small distance offshore, but it makes the principle.

Mr. Powell: Why the French?

Mr. Sproat: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened he would have heard

that I was saying that the principle had been established, and it should be applied across the board.

Mr. Powell: I wanted to know why the derogation was made for the French and not for the Mourne fishermen.

Mr. Sproat: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the reason is precisely that the French are having far too much say in the ways in which the common fisheries policy is being decided.

Mr. Powell: Why?

Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman might bear in mind that they have been here slightly longer than we have and helped cobble together the CFP before we joined. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's Government failed to renegotiate it. It is no use for either side of the House to try to appear as pure white in this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) took us in under the straight agreement that, as he has since made clear, before 1982 the whole question of the CFP would be renegotiated. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, who conducted the renegotiations on behalf of the Labour Government, believed that he could change things afterwards.
I do not think that there is a fisherman in this country who gives a cuss about it either way at this stage. The fishermen know the truth—that both major parties felt that it was more important to get into the Common Market and negotiate once we were in. The Conservatives said it, and the Labour Party did exactly the same. [InterruptionThe hon. Gentleman can fool himself. He cannot fool the House. It was the Labour Government under the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who renegotiated our membership when the referendum was held.
I pass on from that acrimonious point, as I want to keep the debate at an amiable level. Whatever temporary acrimony may have been introduced, I am sure that hon. Members are united in this, that if the Minister cannot secure agreement in Brussels next week he would have the backing of the House if he were to take unilateral action.
In a very thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that we must not regard the 50-mile limit as the be-all and end-all and that we should try to think beyond it. We would all agree, but the fact is that we are not saying that the 50-mile limit is the ideal solution. It just happens to be the best means by which, if we are forced to it, we can control the conservation measures within that area.

Mr. Mark Hughes: rose—

Mr. Sproat: I would rather not give way, because I must conclude soon. I have given way to hon. Members several times.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was right to say that the industry must be clear in its own mind what it meant by a 50-mile limit. What I understand by it is exclusive control within the 50-mile limit. I believe that we must have exclusive control for the United Kingdom within the 50 miles, with power to make what derogations we like and what reciprocal swaps we want. We should make that clear to the fishing industry in this country.
Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns said, we must consider the housewife, not just the industry. What the housewife wants is stable prices, and I say to those hon. Members who may have been so excited by the sound of their own voices that the only way to get stable prices—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be addressing the Chair.

Mr. Sproat: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the housewife wants is stable fish prices, and what the industry wants is general stability so that it can attract investment once again after the difficult period it is going through now. We must preserve the jobs in the industry, both at sea and on shore, we must secure stability of prices for the housewife, and, as several hon. Members have said, we must preserve the way of life of our fishing communities. This also is important, and anyone coming from Aberdeen who knows the inroads which the oil industry is making sees the value of maintaining the way of life which the fishing industry represents.
The only way to do that, if we are denied what we want at Brussels, will be by an exclusively controlled 50-mile zone. There can be no adequate satisfaction apart from that. If the right hon. Gentleman will fight for that at Brussels, he will find that the Opposition are united behind him.

11.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I am glad to know that the House is so united on this matter. It makes me wonder why on 23rd June, a Supply Day, the last time we had a debate about fishing, the Opposition took the trouble to vote against the Government, for reasons which were not very clear then and are a lot less clear even now, when—

Mr. Jopling: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, on that specific point?

Mr. Millan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I have hardly finished my first sentence yet. I said that the reasons were not clear then and they are even less clear today, in view of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides and the fact that the view and stance of the Government today is exactly the same as it was on 23rd June.

Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman may think that the Government's stance is the same, but very many of us on this side feel that as a consequence of our vote then we succeeded—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, we succeeded in greatly stiffening the Government's attitude, and we believe that we are reaping the fruits of that tonight.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman's self-deception knows no bounds. He will be telling us soon that it was not a Conservative Government who took us into the Common Market with completely inadequate protection for our fishing industry. It is that, of course, which is the basis of the difficulties which we face in the present negotiations.
I was about to say that I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not able to stay until the end of the debate—he is slightly indisposed—and I was going on to congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) on what I believe to have been his debut on the


Opposition Front Bench, certainly on the fishing industry. We are used to his speeches from the Back Benches.
The debate today is about very serious issues, and it comes at an opportune time because we shall be taking up again in the early part of next week the discussions at Brussels on the internal régime. I say at once that I appreciate the support which Ministers have in the House. This is an important element in the situation, because we have made clear to the Community on numerous occasions, and we shall be making clear again next week, that fishing is an important national interest for the United Kingdom and we intend to see that that national interest is protected in these negotiations.
We shall make clear also to the several Ministers in the Community that although we consider it to be highly unsatisfactory and worrying to out industry that a solution to these problems is taking so long to achieve, we shall not allow ourselves, because of our concern about the uncertainty in the industry, to be rushed into an unsatisfactory settlement of these difficult issues. When I say that, I know that we have the support of the industry itself, because it has said that it wants to see an early solution. More than an early solution it wishes to see a satisfactory one. But any member of the Community who believes that we shall be forced into an early solution for the sake of getting some solution at all is guilty of deluding himself.
The first matter with which I should like to deal tonight is the question of the internal régime and, in particular, the question of quotas. Let me pick up a point that was made a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). There is nothing wrong with quotas in themselves. Indeed, no system can be satisfactorily established without the allocation of quotas. What we have been saying, and what the House has been saying, is that quotas by themselves are ineffective unless they are buttressed by inspection, by licensing, by monitoring and by effective measures to make sure that the quotas are being enforced. We have that very much in mind in approaching the Commission's proposals for licensing, and so on. So far as the Commission accepts our views on these matters we welcome the advances that

have been made, but we have a long way to go before, even if we get satisfactory quotas, we can be sure that in the event they will be carried out. We have that very much in mind.
In looking at the question of quotas and the allocations proposed by the Commission for next year—this is Document R/2434—we take account of two significant factors which we do not believe are adequately reflected—or indeed reflected at all—in the Commission's allocations. The first of these is that the United Kingdom contributes about 60 per cent. of the fish resources available in the waters within the jurisdiction of member States. No member of the Government has ever used the term "Community pond". We are talking about 200-mile limits, which are national limits which we put through the House for the United Kingdom in a piece of national legislation. If one looks at the total fish resources within all the waters of Community States one sees that 60 per cent. of the resources are contributed by the United Kingdom, and we are not willing to accept any quota allocations that do not recognise that fact.
The second fact that we believe must be taken fully into account is that this country has lost more than other countries. We are not absolutely exclusive in this, because there have been losses of third-country fishing opportunities by other members of the Community as well, but this country has lost more from the reduction in third-country fishing than has any other country within the Community, and that again must be recognised in any allocation of quotas.
The Commission's proposals do not recognise that. They are completely inadequate and, as has been said in the course of the debate, acceptance of the Commission's quotas—and it depends on how one does the calculation—would mean that the United Kingdom was being offered 26 per cent. of all the fish that the Commission is now proposing to allocate among member States, and only 20 per cent. of the total catch available to the Community, including possible allocations to third countries. Set against a 60 per cent. contribution and our losses from third-country waters those figures are completely inadequate.
That is not all, because we believe that the basis on which quotas are to be established should pay very much more regard


than the Commission's proposals do so far to the rights of the coastal States. We have expressed that in three ways: first, that there ought to be an exclusive 12-mile coastal belt from which existing historic rights would be phased out; secondly, that the share of the fish within the 12 to 50-mile zone that is allocated to the United Kingdom should reflect our special coastal position and our contribution to the resources available to the Community—that is the dominant preference concept—and, thirdly, that we should get a satisfactory share of the remainder of the fish resources available to the Community, either within the waters of member States or elsewhere, and that takes account of the waters of the United Kingdom between 50 miles and 200 miles.
I emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). The 50-mile zone is crucial for us since, although we can obtain all we require of some species within that zone, the 50-mile zone by itself will not be enough. We must not over-emphasise the 50-mile zone and ignore the opportunities that we must have between 50 and 200 miles and, where available, in third-country waters.
This is a variation on a concept that we put forward in May 1976 for a variable belt extending up to 50 miles. This was put forward in the belief that it would provide a satisfactory solution to the problems of the United Kingdom industry and a sufficient recognition of our interests as a coastal State. We shall be continuing to argue for these proposals at the meeting next week.
I agree with some of my hon. Friends that in conservation, the British industry, like others, has not been blameless. However, we have a rather better record than most other countries in Europe and successive British Governments have a better record than most other European countries.
We pressed for many years within NEAFC and recently the EEC for adequate international conservation measures to protect fish stocks. We shall continue to press these proposals until effective steps are taken by Community measures or otherwise to ensure that we shall have an adequate quantity of fish for human consumption. There is no

doubt that certain species are extremely vulnerable and that without effective conservation, there is a danger of running them down to a wholly inadequate and dangerously low level.
The Commission proposals in Document R/2429 go a step along that road, but there are some serious omissions, including the right to take national conservation measures in the absence of a Community agreement. There is no satisfactory provision for the carrying of nets of different sizes. I note what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said about the problems associated with this, but I am sure that he will agree that the practice of carrying nets for human consumption fishing and industrial fishing on the same vessel is highly unsatisfactory and we shall not be able to get satisfactory control over industrial fishing fleets until we can do something about that. The Commission's proposals do not take care of it.
On the question of by-catch limits for white fish taken in industrial fisheries, the percentages in the Commission proposals are wholly inadequate and should be considerably reduced. There are also a number of other omissions in the proposals that have come from the Commission so far.
We recognise that in some respects the Commission's proposals move a little forward from the very unsatisfactory situation that we had in NEAFC. It would be in the interest of the United Kingdom and our fishermen generally for us to attempt to improve the Commission's proposals, always with the reservation that we stick very firmly to the agreement reached in The Hague which allows national conservation measures to be taken in the absence of effective Community measures. We have used that provision on herring fishing in the North Sea and with the Norway pout box.
I repeat here what I have said to the Community—that we shall not hesitate to use these national conservation measures in the absence of effective Community provision. But I agree with those who have said today that, given the movement of fish stocks in different parts of the North Sea, for example, Community conservation, if it can be made effective by collective licensing and the


rest, would have considerable advantages over national conservation measures. That is why, while we reserve our right to take national measures, we are anxious to build up the Community provision, too.
I was asked about the actions we have taken in this regard over herring and Norway pout. First let me deal with herring. We have a general ban on North Sea herring fishing until the end of the year. Our view at the moment, subject to whatever scientific advice we may receive, is that there is a strong case for continuing that ban into 1978 for a considerable period. That is the attitude that we shall be taking at the discussions next week.
I was asked about the French derogation. I do not believe that it can be justified on merit. I said so at the penultimate meeting in Luxembourg when the matter was argued by the French. The derogation is very limited. It affects only a comparatively small number of vessels which are not able to fish more than about three miles from the shore.
But if one is to have a complete ban one should ensure that it is complete. If there have to be derogations or exceptions, particular fisheries which are of concern to the United Kingdom must be considered. A number of local fisheries have been mentioned, so perhaps I should refer to the claims of the Shetlands. They have made very strong representations to us. We are considering whether we can make exceptions or whether it would not be better to stick to the complete ban. This matter will come up next week. I should not like to say what the conclusions of the United Kingdom Government will be on this, but I accept absolutely that it cannot be right to have

small exceptions for the French and nobody else. That will be our attitude in next week's discussions.
I come now to the Norway pout box. We believe that the box is already too small for effective conservation. The present box conserves about 25,000 tonnes of white fish. If it were extended one degree eastward the saving of white fish could be doubled to 50,000 tonnes. Attempts were made at the last meeting of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg to persuade us that we should reduce the box even further. We said that in no circumstances were we willing to agree to that, and in the absence of an agreement in the Council of Ministers we have continued the box as a national conservation measure.
I say again that we shall be willing to do that as long as there is no effective Community conservation measure on Norway pout. There is a very important human consumption fishery to be preserved here. While we are not in principle opposed to industrial fishing, we are certainly against it where it is done at the expense of human consumption fishing.
I hope that I have covered some of the main points raised in the debate. I welcome the virtually unanimous support for what the Government are trying to do in these difficult negotiations, and I give every pledge that we are determined to get a satisfactory settlement because we believe that fishing is a vital British national interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2147/77, R/2428/77, R/2429/77, R/2434/77, R/2521/77 and R/2642/77 on Fisheries.

TRADE UNION DUTIES AND ACTIVITIES

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Code of Practice, entitled Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I am grateful to the Minister for moving the motion formally as that permits me to make some comments to which, perhaps, he will reply.
We do not intend to divide the House on this issue but we felt that it would be wrong if a matter of this importance went through on the nod either deliberately or accidentally.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: It has happened.

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman refers to an occasion when through a curious coincidence of accidents we missed the opportunity to debate one of the codes.
The code arises from Sections 57 and 58 of the Employment Protection Act. A duty was laid upon the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to bring forward the code to put flesh upon the legislative requirement that there should be time off for trade union activities and duties.
The ACAS, in carrying out its duties, produced a consultative draft that was circulated in October 1976. I am glad that many amendments have been made to the original consultative draft so as to produce the text that we are now considering.
There is a problem with consultative drafts coming from the ACAS. As I understand the procedure, it is for the ACAS not to express some view of its own in the draft but to take into account the views expressed by bodies such as the TUC and the CBI. Surely it is an impossible task to put all that into one document and circulate it in finding comments that will be taken into consideration in producing a final draft.
There is a danger that the views expressed in the first draft, which aroused strong feelings among some, will be seen as the views of the ACAS civil servants,

those working within the ACAS group. That would be unfortunate because some might argue that as a result the first draft would be in some respects a one-sided document, a pro-trade union draft with no acknowledgement of the need for enterprises to be efficient and productive. That would be an unfair charge to lay against its door.
It is important that the ACAS should be seen to be an impartial and independent body. I hope that it will be jealous of its impartiality and independence in circumstances where it feels that it has put forward a draft culled and cobbled together from the views of major power groupings within society. It should make clear what it has done rather than lay itself open to the charge that it is expressing its own rather partial view on a matter of considerable importance.
In paragraph 8 of the code it is a pity that where the general purpose of the statutory provisions are being described there is no reference to the need for enterprises to be efficient and profitable. Surely there is no point in providing facilities for time off for duties or activities of officers or members of trade unions if the enterprise itself is not one that will continue in being as an efficient and profitable undertaking. Recognition of this primary need would have been a helpful addition, but perhaps it may be taken as read that it underlies the whole code.
Paragraph 8 says:
some employers face particular exigencies of production, services and safety in process industries.
From my knowledge of industry I would say that such exigencies also occur in industries other than process industries. Perhaps the Minister has such a wide definition of "process industries" that it is all embracing. It seems strange that the words "process industries" have been included. Can the Minister help us about their precise meaning?
In paragraph 12 it is suggested that the arrangements ought to be proceeded with by agreement and that the right way to implement the code is by bringing employers and trade union representatives together to get agreed arrangements. That seems to be at the heart of these provisions. The basis seems to be that, the House having given a view and the code having been produced by ACAS, if it is


to work properly there must be agreements at the work place to provide reasonable arrangements to implement the code's provisions.
I compare paragraph 13 with the relevant paragraph of the original draft, paragraph 2(1). That underlines what I was saying about the improvements between the first draft and this document. The original was very loose. I am glad that this document is much more explicit and that employers, who were worried about the width of the original wording, may be reassured. The duties for which time off with pay is to be allowed are much more clearly defined. The use of the words
his or her role in the jointly agreed procedures
stresses a fundamental tenet and it is important to get agreement about what needs to be done effectively to carry out the provisions of the code.
Paragraph 13(e) has a bearing on our debate last Monday on the subject of industrial tribunals. Can the Minister confirm that its net effect is that an employer would pay for the time off of a trade union official advising one of the employer's former employees who had a case against that employer before an industrial tribunal? I am sure that that is how it should be read.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Yes.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance. This is another financial burden on employers in these circumstances. It is a small matter, but it could lead to considerable aggravation of an employer, who might feel that he was being taken to an industrial tribunal somewhat irresponsibly and yet paying for the time off of the person advising the employee.
Paragraphs 14 to 20 deal with training and are very important. I shall not repeat the argument that has gone on for years between the TUC and the CBI, and other employers organisations before the CBI was set up, about the way in which the employer should be involved in training activities. In the past agreement was reached that time off should be allowed for employees to attend approved training courses.
Under these provisions there is no suggestion that the employer should approve the courses but paragraph 18 states that the employer should have details of them. I am a supporter of achieving as much joint involvement in training in industry as possible. There is a great advantage in trying to arrange training programmes for shop stewards and others when there is an input from both the trade union and employer. If this can be done by agreement it is advantageous. I hope that nothing in the code will detract from the type of joint arrangements which have been made in the past and which I should like to see extended.
I welcome the commitment in paragraph 22 to make it easier for members to be involved more in union elections when they are held, not by secret postal ballot but by voting in the more traditional sense either at the work place or close to it. The suggestion that members should be permitted to take reasonable time off during working hours to vote at union elections is first class.
I should like to see more trade unionists involved in electing trade union officials and officers. One of the difficulties in the past has arisen because extremists and politically motivated individuals are able to operate more effectively and take positions of power because of the apathy of those who do not turn up at branch meetings that are held away from their work place. The present system is such that few participate.
I am in favour of greater participation in all elections whether they are to this House, to local authorities or to appoint union officials.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about to the CBI?

Mr. Hayhoe: I said that I was in favour of greater participation in any elections. Anything that encourages greater participation has my support.

Mr. Skinner: What about all the shareholders of every company?

Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), from his normal seated position, can give me a list as long as his arm but he will not detract me from my view that the more participation


we have in our democratic procedures the better.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayhoe: I shall not give way. I do not care particularly what the hon. Member's views are. I want to see the greatest possible participation in union affairs and in other elections. I would have thought that any true democrat would support such a view.
In paragraph 22 of the Code of Practice, in the fifth line, the word "or" appears, and I wonder whether the word "and" would not be more appropriate. The wording is:
Also there may be occasions when it is reasonable for unions to hold meetings of members during working hours because of the urgency of the matter to be discussed or 'where to do so would not adversely affect production or services.
It does not appear to me that these are alternatives—that the meeting should be held either when the matter is urgent or when production would not be adversely affected. It seems to me that the sentence would make much more sense if the word were "and" rather than "or". Perhaps the Minister will say whether, as sometimes happens, a mistake has occurred in the drafting, or whether it is the intention merely to indicate that these meetings should not be held in such a way that the production would be adversely affected.

Mr. George Rodgers: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman believes enthusiastically in democracy unless production is affected?

Mr. Hayhoe: What I said—the hon. Gentleman will be able to read it tomorrow—was that it does not seem to me that it is an either/or situation, so that these meetings should be held either when the matter is urgent or when production is not affected. That would seem to me to be a very curious either/or situation, and I invite the Minister to help the House by giving his views.

Mr. Rooker: rose—

Mr. Hayhoe: I will not give way.
I turn now to paragraph 33 of the code, on which I have one comment to make. The reference in the fourth line of paragraph 33 to "members" seems to me to be the only reference at all in

the code to carrying through the provisions of Section 58(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which says that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the code referred to in the section shall
provide practical guidance on the following matters, that is to say, the question whether, and the circumstances in which a trade union member is to be permitted to take time off under this section for trade union activities connected with industrial action.
It may be that I am not reading the code as those who drafted it intended, but I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate where the requirements of Section 58(4) of the Employment Protection Act 1975 are carried out in the Code of Practice, if it is otherwise than in that one small reference in the final paragraph of the code.
It is my view that the Code of Practice can be either a tool or a weapon. As an engineer, I can think of very many tools which can be used for practical constructive work or which, used in another way, can be very dangerous weapons. As a tool, the code could improve industrial relations. As a weapon, it could disrupt production. Used responsibly, it could be of considerable use. Used in a pedantic, legalistic and obstructive manner, it could easily cause great damage.
It is not our intention, as I indicated, to vote against the motion tonight, but that does not mean to say that we agree with all aspects of the code. I do not believe that the Confederation of British Industry would. I do not believe that others who have had a hand in its production are committed absolutely to total support for all its provisions. But ACAS has produced in the code a generally acceptable compromise, and that is the job that ACAS had to do. I believe that we in Parliament, whether on the Government or on the Opposition side, should give approval to the code tonight. We should be prepared to return to consideration of these matters if experience shows that the code is not working well.
I hope that ACAS will find means of monitoring the way in which the code is used. If defects emerge, if its provisions are misused, if clarification is needed or it its provisions are not effective, ACAS should be prepared to come forward with amendments to this code which we shall consider. 
Having made some critical comments about the code—other critical comments can be made from different points of view—I still believe that the right course tonight is to approve the code and to see how it works. If changes are needed in future we should consider them, but we on the Opposition Benches will give the code a fair wind tonight.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Initially I want to welcome the code very much. As someone who was involved in a number of shop stewards' courses before I entered this House, it seems to me that much of what is in the code is already practised by a large number of companies up and down the country. I take it that this is an attempt to bring some of the others who have been reticent more into line.
I should like to make one or two critical comments. First, it is quite wrong to use the word "training" because in this area of industrial relations we should think much more in terms of giving those involved a much wider knowledge and of providing knowledge on a whole range of fronts. I am worried that the code will stick too rigidly to what it describes as "training" which is relevant to the industrial relations duty of an official.
That is too tight a definition. I hope therefore that my assessment of the code is wrong. I believe that shop stewards should be able to acquire knowledge in terms of economics and for example the way in which the capitalist system is run. They should be able to acquire knowledge in the areas of psychology, sociology and so forth. I hope, therefore, that we shall not restrict the code simply to what certain employers feel is the industrial relations requirements for their companies.
I found that employers were more than willing to pay for courses if they were to brainwash shop stewards into accepting productivity schemes, job evaluation schemes, measured day work schemes or one of the many schemes that business and management consultants bring out practically every day of the week. I am worried about that tendancy to restrict.
As the TUC pointed out in its document "Good Industrial Relations" knowledge is strength and power. I would regret it very much if the code simply pro-

vided so-called "training" which told a shop steward how he or she ought to behave within a particular company. I hope it is quite clear that the job of a trade union official, shop steward and representative is to protect and to further the interests of the people whom they represent. Fundamentally that is their job.
I do not for a minute accept what the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was trying to put across—that such people have other kinds of duties which, it seems to me, management or their consultants can adequately deal with. Their main function is to represent working people and to further their interests. I hope that "training" will be on that basis.
I also think that it is a great pity that we have not made any advance in planning agreements. What an opportunity it would be to link planning agreements in British industry to the right of shop stewards and other trade union activists to receive courses of appreciation in opening the books of companies and challenging the assumptions and edicts that we get day in and day out from management.
I suggest that it is ironical that we have this at a time when we have what to all intents and purposes is a statutory incomes policy. One of the functions of appreciation courses for shop stewards should be to enable them to put a good case to management in wage negotiations. However, we have at the moment a statutory level of increase of 10 per cent., and it seems almost a waste of time to train shop stewards to represent their members in a better fashion in wage negotiations, knowing that at the end of the day, even though they could make a good case for more than 10 per cent., the Government will make sure that they do not get it.
We talk about courses of training for shop stewards. However, in my experience it is people in management who need industrial relations training. Again, it is a little ironical that there is no mention of this in the document. I am not saying that there should have been a special section devoted to it. But I think it ought to be made clear in the introduction to a code of this kind that it is people in management who really need training.


The level of appreciation and understanding of industrial relations amongst employers and managers, who are the real decision makers, is pathetic, to say the least.
By and large, Government supporters will welcome the provision of time off to enable people to attend certain meetings and functions. I take very little notice of the opinion of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth in regard to the importance of ensuring democracy in voting. The point has been made already that few shareholders ever bother to turn up at company meetings. The Opposition do not seem to want to encourage that. They do not want to encourage a democratic involvement when it produces results they do not like. The real life of a trade union is at branch level, and the real answer should be to encourage more people to attend branch meetings. The answer is not to come up with all sorts of gimmicks and to sidetrack branches meetings.

Mr. Mike Noble: Did my hon. Friend hear the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsolver (Mr. Skinner) that he did not care about his view? Was not that exactly the situation which led to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) voting for a Communist in an election in his branch of APEX? Is it not important to get information and to care about other people's views so that we can understand exactly what we are voting for in the trade union movement?

Mr. Thomas: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.
I return to my earlier argument. I hope that there will not be a tendency to restrict the content of courses of appreciation for shop stewards and trade union representatives. There should be courses of appreciation in economics, sociology, psychology and politics. There should even be some information for example on the lifeline being given by the Bank of England to major companies and similar issues and on the financial structures and balance sheets of those companies. All in all, we must challenge the elistist concept in British industry that only certain people in management have the kind of knowledge that is required to make decisions.
When we look back at the record of British economic and industrial growth over the past few years, we see what incredibly stupid mistakes have been made. If the aim is to challenge that elitism and the myths which have been built up about the competence of British management, I am all for it.
One final aspect in which shop stewards and trade union representatives need training is how effectively to organise industrial action to defend workers interests. I hope that that will not be left out of any course which they attend.

12 midnight

Sir Anthony Meyer: I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there is need to improve the training and qualifications of management. I doubt whether this code is the right place for it, but I am glad that he spoke about it.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), I welcome this code. I have been consistent in urging that it should be made much easier for people to participate in trade union activities. It is enormously important to avoid the situation in which people find, at the end of the day, that they are too exhausted to attend a branch meeting.
For one reason or another, union democracy withers on the vine because of lack of participation. To the extent that the code will make it easier for people to participate in union activities and make elections and some decision-making more democratic, I unreservedly welcome the idea behind the code, and the code itself.
It is as well to realise that when the small firms wake up to it, as I suspect that they have not, they will regard the code as another straw on their back, and it will be important to explain to them that it will not add enormously to their already extremely heavy burden. Had it been possible to provide a cut-off point for a minimum size of firm to which the code would apply, I would have felt a little happier, but I accept that it is not possible to do so.
That being so, I would have liked to see written into the code a rather firmer declaration of the special problems and difficulties which can affect a very small firm faced with the need to allow time


off—perhaps quite a lot—for union activities. This problem gets but a passing mention.
Paragraph 8 refers to
the special circumstances of the small firm".
That is the only regard paid to the special problems of the small firms. I would have liked to see the language strengthened there. I do not think that anything but good can come of this as far as large firms are concerned.
As my hon. Friend said, everything depends on the spirit in which the code is operated. There is no doubt that it could be used as a weapon. There is nothing in the language of the code to prevent evil-intentioned persons from using it completely to sabotage the operations of a firm they wished to damage. The language restraining them therefrom in the code is flexible in the extreme. There are such expressions in paragraph 25, for example, which says that the management representative should be
informed as far in advance as is reasonable in the circumstances.
There is no kind of guidance as to what constitutes reasonable advance notice. Paragraph 29 says:
The union official and union member should not unduly or unnecessarily prolong the time they are absent from work on union duties or activities.
Once again there is not even a guideline as to what constitutes an undue or unnecessarily long time. There is something to be said for putting some kind of figure as to the number of hours a week which might be considered to be reasonable.
I do not want to press this because whatever influence is used and whatever stipulations are put into the code, everything depends on the spirit in which it is operated. I hope that the fact that the code has received an unreserved welcome from the Conservative Benches will indicate that in such contacts as we have with business we shall urge those involved to co-operate with the maximum amount of enthusiasm, which they can muster.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Mike Noble: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), I spent many years in trade union education and it is to that aspect of the code that I want to address my remarks. The code represents

a small step towards improved industrial relations and perhaps a smaller step towards a measure of industrial democracy. It is significant that, while company directors can get off to board meetings without any let or hindrance, shop stewards, who may have a vital problem to discuss with full-time officials or with their members, have often been prevented from doing so during working hours. To that extent the code is to be welcomed. All that it does is to codify the industrial practices operated by the best firms.
Those of us who have been involved for any time in trade union education have been concerned to see the education side stressed rather than the training side. My hon. Friend for Bristol, North-West and I have been well aware of situations when companies have approached providing bodies and said "We have a problem. The shop stewards do not understand the grievance procedure. Would you do a one-day or two-day course to show them how to use it?" or "We are trying to introduce a new job evaluation scheme and the shop stewards do not understand what job evaluation is. Will you come along and tell them about it in fairly general terms?" The companies have been trying to get the tutors in industrial relations to act as suckers to do the groundwork for them and to present a fairly reasonable front for some scheme which would be objectionable in the long run.
We have constantly stressed the need for trade union representatives and trade union members to be able to participate in trade union education, which is an entirely different subject from the mainstream of education. It is necessary to inform trade unionists so that they are not only trained in the affairs of their unions but are able to play a participatory role in the company for which they work. If we are to have industrial democracy as we in the Labour Party understand it, trade union members must be able critically to examine the total concept of the firm in which they are employed. I have not yet seen a comprehensive system of industrial relations education or any other kind of trade union education which would fit them to do that.
We know about the problems of joint involvement in syllabuses. My experience is that this is usually meant to provide some input into the syllabus to


sell some point on behalf of the company. That is dangerous. It is certainly not education. At best it is indoctrination and at worst downright political propaganda. We have to be objective about this. Hon. Members are getting some experience of joint courses. My experience of these courses is that one of two things happens. Either the shop stewards try to score off the management and the management clown or the situation is reversed. There is no dialogue.
The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) should understand that we are operating with two different value systems. In those circumstances, although one hopes that education will bridge the gap, to think that it is possible to conduct meaningful courses on issues directly related to the workplace is asking too much.
My other criticism of the training and education aspects of the code concerns an area in which I had a specific interest before I became a Member. I accept that perhaps some of the phrases in the code cover race relations, education and training, but I should have liked to see more in the code relating directly to the race relations aspect. There are many firms and industries in which, if we are to have meaningful industrial democracy, we have to provide the opportunity for the majority of the employees, in some cases, to participate in that democracy. The first barrier is that of language. We should have emphasised the deep problems that exist in the textile industry and other industries in relation to education and training, particularly language training and race relations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will emphasise the importance of this point.
My second point is that it is fine to talk about providing opportunities for education and training, but someone has to provide the facilities in terms of cash and, perhaps even more important, personnel to carry out that education and training. It is not good enough to assume that someone will learn the process of industrial relations by "sitting next to Nellie", by sitting next to the chap who already does the job, or by going to meetings.
The quid pro quo on the training of trade union representatives is that there is a great need for more cash and facilities to be given to the providing bodies in this field. I accept that this may not be

the responsibility of my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will talk about this with the Department of Education and Science. More cash and facilities are needed by the Workers' Educational Association, and by the extra-mural departments of polytechnics involved in this work.
Teaching posts are frozen at the moment, and as long as posts are frozen we cannot talk about expansion. In many cases the departments concerned could not expand much more without putting an intolerable pressure on those involved in this area of education. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West and I would have welcomed more cash and facilities when the field was being pioneered 12 years ago. It was only in 1963 that the TUC created the present scheme of education and training and the NCLC was wound up, and a new kind of partnership was created between the TUC and the Workers' Educational Association and other providing bodies, and we had the present scheme for trade union education.

Mr. Skinner: Some were doing it before that.

Mr. Noble: I accept that many unions were doing it long before, but many unions were unable to provide it. It was the partnership that created this provision. Since then the demand has out-stripped the provision. If we are to meet the kind of obligations laid down in the code and give an opportunity to any shop steward who is elected to go on a proper course of education, we need to create far more facilities than we have.
It is regrettable that, when we are talking about providing a training college in the North, we find that Faircroft College, in the Midlands, has still not reopened. There is some doubt about whether it will reopen, and what kind of courses it will provide. The Government must put their money where their mouth is and say "If we believe in good industrial relations and in working class education, trade union education, we have to provide the cash." I hope that it will be forthcoming soon.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: If the Government believed in good industrial relations they would have sent the top


civil servants and Ministers on industrial relations courses long ago.
I welcome this code of practice. It is a weapon, as the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) rightly said. As I see it, it is a function of Labour Members to provide weapons for working people to defend and advance their own interests. It is a tragedy that we have had to wait so long for this code following the implementation of the Employment Protection Act.
My remarks will be brief and related mainly to paragraph 13 of the code. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer one query concerning the combine committees. There are many large companies today, multi-plant companies and multinational companies in some cases, where the interests of workers and work groups often transcend the allegiance of individual trade unions. The fact that they work for a certain employer at different sites around the country is their binding force.
Neither the official trade union movement nor Government Departments look gladly at combine committees, but some of the committees are becoming really effective. One can quote as an example of the past the British Motor Corporation committee of 10 years ago. Today, with a different industrial relations perspective, one would cite the Lucas Aerospace combine shop stewards committee. I want the shop stewards and trade union members working in such a combine to be able to use the expertise, skills and technology available to them at various sites to frame an alternative corporate plan, a workers' corporate plan.
I have a feeling that once the lawyers become involved they will say that this is not industrial relations and is not covered by the items listed in paragraph 13, for example. This matter is crucial. By the time the code of practice comes into force next April there could be problems in Lucas Aerospace. I attended today a meeting on this very issue with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, responsible for aerospace. I want an assurance that the shop stewards and leaders of the Lucas Aerospace combine committee may have the necessary time off, without loss of pay and without the present fear of victimisation, to refine their ideas and get them straight, ready to negotiate with the company.
That is what will have to happen in the end.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are serious about planning agreements shop stewards and trade union representatives should have every opportunity to make a contribution to those planning agreements?

Mr. Skinner: What are planning agreements?

Mr. Rooker: I will tell my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry said publicly today that he would ask the Lucas Aerospace company to enter into a planning agreement with the Government. The workers' problems that the combine group of shop stewards have come up against could have been solved if there had been planning agreements in operation. They are about involving the workers in what is happening in their company.
This does not mean only that the workers are involved through their official structure as we on the Labour Benches understand it. We must take account today of the growth of combine committees and the power of the work group in multi-plant companies. This is something with which the official trade union leadership has not yet come to grips. I hope that the implementation of the code of practice will send the combine committee movement on a little faster.
I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) that under paragraph 13(a) it is intended that a workmate, a shop steward, can attend an industrial tribunal and represent or speak on behalf of an aggrieved constituent, a former employee who has already had the boot, without loss of pay and the victimisation that there can be today.
Unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), I do not criticise the industrial tribunals. I feel aggrieved if I do not get one case into an industrial tribunal at least once a month. I feel that I am failing in my job if I do not have one constituent using the tribunal system, which is there to be used by constituents.
I hope that my hon. Friend will nail what the hon. Gentleman said about paragraph 22. The paragraph clearly implies that if a matter is urgent it shall be discussed irrespective of the problems of production. That is what paragraph 22 says as it stands, though it is not what the hon. Gentleman wishes it to mean.
As some of my hon. Friends know, part of my industrial experience was in production management. It used to grieve me if the vans were not being loaded and the production line stopped. But I never had a production line stopped for this sort of reason, because my colleagues and I, and most of my superiors—though not all—were putting into practice precisely what is in this code now.
If a matter is urgent, it does not matter if production is interrupted because, if no account is taken of an urgent matter, more production will be lost at the end of the day than would be lost if it were interrupted in the first place. This is the story of British Leyland. There would not have been all the problems in British Leyland in the past few years, and we should not have lost the production of so many cars, if cognisance had been taken of the workers' problems in the first place.
I come now to paragraph 29, to which the hon. Member for Flint, West referred. I resent the presence of this paragrant in the code of practice. It is a criticism and an implication that workers' representatives, shop stewards and trade union officials, cannot be trusted to use only the time necessary to carry out their functions on behalf of the workers. I contrast paragraph 29 with the expansive lunch hours of managers in British industry.

Mr. Ron Thomas: And on the golf course.

Mr. Rooker: And on the golf course. What about those lunch hours which never end because the people are never seen back in the factories at the end of the day? Where is the admonishment there? There is not a word. Yet it is thought fit to put in not an implied criticism but an explicit criticism to the effect that trade union officials and shop stewards cannot be trusted. This is the sort of attitude which has permeated British

industrial relations in the past few years—a lack of trust and a fear of assuming that ordinary work people can accept a responsibility. Even the Government sometimes cannot accept that workers' representatives can play a truly responsible role.
It is that refusal to grant responsibility that drives people into a corner and brings on others who do not wish to be responsible but wish to use a given situation for all kinds of other purposes.
I deeply resent paragraph 29 and its criticism, and if it were possible to do so I should move an amendment to delete it on the ground that it discriminates and is totally unfair to those whom we are now asking to do a job as representatives of British workers. We are asking them to do it on behalf of the Labour Government. It is their job. We give them a weapon, and we expect them to use it. We do not expect them to start off with a slur on their character and one hand tied behind their back. Yet that is what paragraph 29 does, in my opinion.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will allude directly to paragraph 29 and point out, although his words will not have the force of the draft code, that it is not intended as a slur and is not intended to mean that trade union representatives are irresponsible. I hope that he will put that at least on the record tonight so that some of us later, when problems arise, can use my hon. Friend's words. We know that he is greatly respected outside the House for the work he has done in bringing forward this proposal and the Employment Protection Act. I ask him not to let the occasion pass without a direct reference to paragraph 29.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth pointed out that there were not many hon. Members on the Back Benches. I am not convinced that there will be no opposition to this draft code of practice when the Question is put. We know what the Tory Party has been doing both inside and outside the House. We saw the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at it again tonight on "Panorama". The Tories have launched a massive campaign against the Employment Protection Act, and tonight gives them a God-sent chance to mount an ambush against the Government. I


suspect that outside this place, in the clubs—not in the pubs now, because they should be closed—in the dining rooms and in the flats around Westminster there are Members of Parliament waiting to ambush the Government.
The Tories are committed to oppose and to reform the Employment Protection Act, and one of the things at the root of their opposition is the weapons we have given to the trade union movement. This is a most important weapon, and it is only when the draft code is passed that I shall believe that there is no opposition to it from the Tory Front Bench or from any other Conservative Members.
I say that because they cannot complain, through the media and by other means, that the Employment Protection Act has resulted in massive constraints upon businesses, both small and large, and then allow this code, which is a weapon to ensure workers' rights, to be passed. They cannot say that that Act imposes burdens on small and medium-sized firms, which should have good industrial, relations and usually do because they are small and medium-sized, and allow the code to pass without a vote. If they do, they will have to answer in the country for their actions.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly offensive that this paragraph, which suggests that trade unionists would abuse any time given to them for discussions of this nature, should come from this place, where many hon. Members are in receipt of public funds and spend a lot of time on other occupations?

Mr. Rooker: Most hon. Members are part-time. About 400 have other jobs to go to. Look at the number of Members present. There are no Liberals, no Ulster Unionists and no Scottish and Welsh nationalists. In fact, very few Tories are present. It is a credit to this side of the House that three Ministers and so many of my hon. Friends are present. We are suspicious that some Tory Members are waiting in ambush to ditch this important measure.

12.26 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham,

Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is right to draw attention to the disparity in the balance of hon. Members present on this occasion but I do not know that it is right to express the suspicion that he has done of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and I are not always given to uttering kind words about each other, but I am prepared, without hesitation, to believe him when he says that he and his hon. Friends have no intention of dividing the House this evening.
I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said about the report that he had heard that the Opposition intend to launch an all-out assault on the Employment Protection Act. I was under the impression that that Act had been subjected to an all-out assault for the past two years. Perhaps the difference now is that we might be told which parts of the Act the Opposition intend to repeal, or precisely what they intend to do. Whenever we have asked them to state precisely what they mean to do they have retreated into a quiet corner knowing that, by and large, the Act is a popular measure not only among trade unionists but among those who have seen the inestimable benefits that it has brought for industrial relations generally.

Mr. Skinner: Where are the inestimable benefits for the workers at Grunwick Limited? I have listened carefully to the argument about this wonderful code of conduct and what it will do to improve industrial relations. If it is to do anything, and if the Employment Protection Act is as good as my hon. Friend is suggesting, why it is that George Ward, backed by the Tory forces opposite, has been able for about 18 months to keep workers out of a trade union? The same applies to E and H at Langley Mill, in Derbyshire and to Sandersons, near Skegness. There is to be a demonstration there on Saturday, and I hope to be present.
All those things are allowed to happen, and now my hon. Friend comes along with a little camouflage and suggests that everything in the garden is rosy. When he has brought George Ward to task I shall understand that he is doing something fundamental.

Mr. Walker: I hope that my hon. Friend will not allow his assessment of the benefits of the Act to be obscured by the deplorable situation at Willesden. He should ask himself why, if the Act is so lacking in benefits for the trade union movement, it has been so bitterly attacked by Conservative Members. I doubt whether the House would expect me to be led into a debate about the Grunwick dispute, but I should be happy to debate the matter with my hon. Friend on an appropriate occasion. If he gets an Adjournment debate I shall be happy to respond to it.
I have to reply to points raised in the debate about the code of practice that is before the House. I must stress that it is not the Government's code or my code; it is the ACAS code. I am in the same position as every hon. Member in interpreting its words. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr will be encouraged if I say that we must take paragraph 22 as meaning what it says. That paragraph states:
Also there may be occasions when it is reasonable for unions to hold meetings of members during working hours because of the urgency of the matter to be discussed or where to do so would not adversely affect production or services".
It says "or", and that is the word that we ask the House to approve.

Mr. Noble: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) wanted to insert "and" instead of "or"? He was saying that one could not deal with an immediate problem if it interfered with production.

Mr. Walker: I am picking up that point and stressing that my interpretation is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and contrary to that of the Opposition spokesman.
It is ACAS' code and therefore it is not for me to attempt to explain why ACAS arrived at the conclusions it reached or to try to understand its reasoning. It is merely for me to say to what extent we accept the code.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth echoed the complaint in the document before the recent first annual conference of the CBI "Britain means business" which said:

Much of ACAS work has been applauded, particularly in conciliation of disputes, but there is concern … about the way it conducts recognition enquiries and about the biased nature of its consultative drafts on codes of practice".
The hon. Gentleman felt that there was room for criticism of the code. When drawing up any code under the Act, ACAS is required to publish a first draft for consultation, to consider all representations and to submit the final draft for the approval of the Secretary of State and, subsequently, Parliament. That procedure was followed in the preparation of this draft code and the consultative document was produced only after extensive consultations with the TUC and CBI.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth also reminded us that ACAS issued a consultative document setting out the first draft of the code in October and copies of the consultative document were made widely available. In all, ACAS received 200 formal submissions from the TUC, CBI, individual employers, employers' associations, professional associations, local authorities and individuals. After the submissions had been carefully considered, there were meetings with some of the more important organisations to discuss them further. The present code reflects in its changes the comments and advice that ACAS received.
This is not the first code of practice stemming from the Act. I very much regret that because of a series of misfortunes, none of which was his responsibility, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was deprived of the opportunity to comment on behalf of the Opposition on the code on the disclosure of information. I very much regret the circumstances of that occasion, and I accept my fair share of the blame for them.
The hon. Member criticised the lack of an efficiency criterion in paragraph 8 of the code. He also criticised some of the things that had been included. He referred to the passage dealing with the
particular exigencies of production, services and safety process industries.
The paragraph says that these are examples. It would have been unreasonable for us to expect ACAS to attempt to specify in that paragraph all the criteria which should have been taken into account in determining when it is


appropriate to have time off for trade union duties. I wonder, too, whether it would have been within the terms of reference of ACAS to refer to an efficiency criterion.
The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends referred to the question of training. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) was critical even of the use of the word "training", and suggested that we needed something wider such as experience, knowledge, or education. I understand his point. But in paragraph 14 the code reflects what he was saying. It reads:
To carry out their duties effectively officials need to possess skills and knowledge. In addition to the practical experience obtained from holding office officials should undertake training in relevant subjects when necessary.
The need to possess skills, knowledge and practical experience is therefore acknowledged.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I take my hon. Friend's point. But paragraph 15, which seems to be linked to the preceding paragraph, says that the training should be relevant to the industrial relations duties of the official. That worries me. It seems too restricting.

Mr. Walker: The Act provided ACAS with the mandate to set up a code which dealt with time off for trade union duties. While there is no specific reference to shop stewards, they were the people that we had primarily in mind. The circumstances in which time off might be appropriate, and the purposes for which training is required, are specified.
My hon. Friend said that it was ironic that there was no mention of training for management. Notwithstanding the validity of that criticism, the code is about time off for trade union duties and activities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) referred to the need for language training. I hope that there will be no difference between us about the importance of this. I know that my hon. Friend speaks from personal experience in his constituency. But in so far as it refers to training, the code deals with time off for the training of trade union officials.

Mr. Noble: Is it not a fact that in the textile industry language training in race relations fall within trade union activi-

ties? One of the problems for trade unions in the textile industry in particular, where there are many immigrant workers, is to educate those workers in the meaning of trade union membership and responsibilities to enable them to participate in trade union duties.

Mr. Walker: I understand that point that my hon. Friend is making. If he is saying that the code should specifically provide that a trade union official or members should be allowed time off to allow him to carry out his trade union activities, taking into account his ethnic origins and lack of familiarity with the English language, I am sure that that will be considered by those who will have to apply the code. It may be that occasions will arise when the point that my hon. Friend raised will be relevant.
My hon. Friends have spoken about the importance of adequate Government support for training, and it may interest them if I digress to say that the Government share that view. It is important that we support trade union training and education. For that reason we have provided since last year what I consider to be a significant amount of financial support to the TUC and affiliated independent trade unions. In 1976–77 the grant that we made available for trade union education purposes was £400,000. This year the grant will be increased to £650,000, which includes £100,000 towards the cost of short courses of two to three days for categories of education that were not eligible for assistance in the first year.
In anticipation of the expected growth in employee participation and the education needs that will arise from that, the TUC has made proposals for a major expansion of the training and education provision by the early 1980s. The proposals, which would call for at least a corresponding increase in the level of Government financial support, are being carefully considered by my Department and the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale, in stressing the need for Government support for precisely that kind of training, referred to the National Council for Labour Colleges. I am bound to say that he struck a responsive chord in my heart because for many years I was the Secretary of the Manchester and Salford College of that organisation.

Mr. Ron Thomas: There are upwards of 200,000 shop stewards in British industry and if we are providing only £3 for each one, does my hon. Friend agree that we have a long way to go yet?

Mr. Walker: I understand that, but I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that we are making some progress. After all the years of the trade union movement's existence when it was unthinkable that there should be one penny of public money spent on supporting trade union education and training, it is significant that in 1976–77, 1977–78 and beyond we should be providing what I think are significant sums. I am bound to say that only a few years ago the trade union movement itself would have been suspicious about taking money from the State. I hope that the fact that it is now taking it is an indication of the confidence that it has in the present Government and their good intentions.
The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) is usually most reasonable and constructive when discussing these matters. Tonight, he seemed to be indulging in an aberration from his normal, more reasonable, personality when he suggested —I am paraphrasing his words, but I am not exaggerating them—that there may be malevolent people who would seek to exploit the code for damaging industrial relations purposes. That is not the sort of language that he normally uses. I think that my hon. Friends would be the first to assert that the code is couched in the most moderate and reasonable terms. I am sure that if anyone sought to exploit it in the terms suggested it would be for an industrial tribunal to make the final judgment. I know that in the Conservative Party currently there are some doubts and scepticism about industrial tribunals, but I think that industrial tribunals would have to interpret the very reasonable language in which the code is couched.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth was rather critical of paragraph 33, which concerns time off in respect of industrial action. The Act specifically asked ACAS to address itself to this possibility in the code. The guidance that it gives is sensible and, in the kind of situation that may well exist, the reasonable granting of time off, by pro-

viding proper discussion and the adequate informing of those concerned, may well provide a satisfactory resolution of what may be an actual or potential dispute. Confusion or lack of information at such a time may well only worsen a situation.
The hon. Member asked me about the proper representation of members of a trade union before industrial tribunals, and my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr asked me to confirm his understanding that paragraph 13(e) meant that it would be reasonable to allow time off for a trade union official to appear before an industrial tribunal even though that tribunal might be dealing with a case of unfair dismissal by that official's own employer. Yes, indeed, that is the interpretation that certainly I would place on those provisions. I do not see that it would be unreasonable.
There may be those who would say that that was an odd situation, that here was an employer who sacked a chap and then had to allow time off and pay for it so that a shop steward could represent the dismissed worker, even against his own employer. Of course, nobody queries the other side of it, which is that the employer will often be represented before the industrial tribunal by a member of the management who is receiving his pay from the same company. There is nothing at all odd about my interpretation. It can spring only from the assumption that the interests of the company are identified only with the employer, whereas I assert that the interests of the company are identifiable with the whole company, the employees as well as the employer.
Paragraph 29 says:
The union official and union member should not unduly or unnecessarily prolong the time they are absent from work on union duties or activities.
The code is required to address itself to what is reasonable in all the circumstances. My understanding is that reasonableness extends both ways. While there is a ready assumption that reasonableness is intended to act as a brake on the employee or on the trade union official, it should also extend the other way and the employer should be prepared to accept reasonableness, and perhaps that is the criterion that should be used in the application of paragraph 29.

Sir A. Meyer: In the absence of any indication of what constitutes a reasonable amount of time off, clearly reasonableness can be extended indefinitely in both directions.

Mr. Walker: Of course it can not. If there is a difference of opinion between the trade union representative and the employer it will be laid before the industrial tribunal for it to decide what is "reasonable". Naturally, we hope that there will be few of such cases.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth that it is to be hoped that the application of the code will proceed by agreement and understanding and that the tribunals will be kept out of it as much as possible. However, perhaps there will be cases where "reasonableness" will have to be decided by an industrial tribunal and case law will be built up to establish what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" in the application of the code.
I hope that I have not missed too many of the questions raised by hon. Members.

Mr. Rooker: I wish to raise a brief but new point with the Minister. How many copies of the code have been printed? Will they be available to the many thousands of shop stewards and others who may want them? It would be typical if 200,000 people wanted copies and only 20,000 were available.

Mr. Walker: I cannot answer that question, and I suspect that my hon. Friend knew that I would not be able to. If he is anxious about the adequacy of the printing I shall look into it. It is interesting that, unlike most Government publications which carry the price of a single copy, this code shows the price of bulk orders. I hope that it will have a wide readership and that it will be carefully studied by those to whom it applies.

Sir A. Meyer: It might also be useful if small firms were able to obtain copies of the code easily.

Mr. Walker: I am not sure what the hon. Member means. Perhaps he is hinting that I did not take up his argument about small firms. The code will be as readily available to small firms as to any other employer or trade union. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been grateful that the code specifically refers to small firms and

suggests that trade unions should take their circumstances into account when applying for time off.
I hope that I have not missed replying to too many questions. The code is not mine. It is not the Government's code. It is the code produced by ACAS. I have expressed the Government's view of its provisions.
The Government intend to bring the provisions of the Act and the code into operation on 1st April 1978. That should give those concerned on both sides of industry adequate time in which to review arrangements for time off and to reach agreement about any changes that might be necessary. When we have implemented Clauses 57 and 58 the whole of the Employment Protection Act will be in operation. This is an achievement of which we can be proud.
These provisions represent a major part of one of the most significant improvements in industrial relations that this country has experienced. I hope that the House will join me in commending ACAS for the code. I am sure that all those involved in industrial relations will find it helpful.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Code of Practice, entitled Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities which was laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

CONSUMER ADVICE CENTRES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Michael Ward: I am drawing the attention of the House tonight to the closure or proposed closure of some 30 local authority consumer advice centres because such action, in my view, cannot be regarded as purely a local issue to be decided solely by councils accountable only to their electors.
The issue is of national concern, not only because the Department represented by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, has made available substantial financial support for consumer advice centres but because the last three years have seen a steady building up of a national network of consumer advice centres, which have played a very important role in the general battle against inflation by protecting the shopper's purse against unfair trade practices, by dealing with unreasonable price rises, and by dealing with complaints against shoddy goods which do not represent value for money. In this period particularly this has been money which can ill be spared when there is a policy of income restraint, and certainly spared less by those on very low incomes.
The growth of consumer advice centres has been very rapid under the benevolent wing of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, if I may say so, his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mrs. Williams). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has played a particularly energetic role in encouraging local authorities to see and understand their responsibilities as providers of consumer advice, information and guidance in an increasingly complicated market situation.
It was Mr. John Methven, as he was then, the Director General of Fair Trading, who, in his annual report for 1975, illustrated how complicated the situation is. He said:
Consumer laws often prove extremely difficult to understand for all but the most sophisticated shopper, and I have been dismayed in my discussions with trade organisations at the lack of knowledge shown by many traders concerning their legal obligations towards their customers. Whenever new consumer protection laws are introduced a great deal of carefully directed publicity is essential. For example, many shopkeepers do not know that they have an obligation to supply goods of merchantable quality. The novelty of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act is no excuse because this obligation goes back into Victorian times.
If such ignorance is widespread among tradesmen who spend their working lives in constant contact with the problems which arise during buying and selling goods or providing services, it is hardly

surprising if housewives or, more commonly today, their husbands or their children, have difficulty in knowing what they should do, whom they should see, how they should assert their rights when something goes wrong when they are out shopping or when they get home and realise that there is a fault in something for which they have given hard-earned cash, or if the item is not suitable for their purpose owing to some misdescription.
It is well known that, until the Consumers' Association was set up in the late 1950s, there was not a great deal of protection about at all, except through the criminal law. We can guess from our experience of the modern trading standards service that in the past too often the work of the old weights and measures officers—working as they did from obscure premises and with little publicity —was not as effective as it coud have been. Even, I suppose, in the shop itself, where frequently in a one-to-one situation the honest shopkeeper built up a good relationship with his customers, the passage of time, the development of self-service by the supermarket and, more recently, the hypermarket, has altered the situation.
The shopper has had to face a bewildering variety of merchandise and products in a rapidly changing technology, and as a result many people in recent years have found shopping a confusing business. This confusion was recognised in the Fair Trading Act 1973, which required the Director-General of Fair Trading and the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee to deal with any trade practice which
has the effect or is likely to have the effect of misleading or confusing consumers with respect to any matter in connection with relevant consumer transactions".
Taking their cue from consumer clinics established in Europe as early as 1928 and in the United States in the 1930s, the Consumers' Association decided to reach down into the High Streets of Britain.
The success of the association's magazine "Which?" in the area of product testing and comparison, with consumer advice and a complaints service, was seen to be reaching only a limited section of the population and that section was


usually particularly articulate and well-informed. The association set up its pioneer consumer shop in Kentish Town —a shop that combined a pre-shopping advice centre with a citizens advice bureau which took up individual complaints. It was an instant success form the moment it opened in 1969 and over 40,000 people passed through its doors in two years. Indeed, I well remember going to visit it in 1969 in common with other members of my own local authority, and it persuaded many of us—with its bright front, its splendid presentation and its accessibility—that this was something that was filling an information vacuum which had been clearly causing disadvantage to a lot of people.
So, in a number of London boroughs, notably in Greenwich, first, and then in my own London borough of Havering—using at that time the free penny rate that was available to us under the law prior to 1972—we began to set up consumer advice centres.
Following the financial arrangements in the 1972 Local Government Act, many other authorities in the provinces were able to follow suit.
I was gratified to learn from my right hon. Friend that in July 120 consumer advice centres in this country were being grant-aided by his Department. He estimates that they serve a population of about 25 million, which is almost half the total population. By any measure it is clear that these centres have met a need which had existed for a long time but was not being satisfied before 1972.
Figures are not complete, and I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading is improving the method and the scope of collection of statistics, but according to his last annual report for the year ending September 1976, the number of consumer complaints handled by local advice centres and citizens advice bureaux was 470,503. Of these complaints, 358,000 were about goods, 37,000 concerned the servicing of goods and 75,000 arose from the provision of services. The largest groups of complaints came from the supply and servicing of motor vehicles, clothing, furniture, radio, TV and other domestic electrical equipment.
If allowed I shall give the House an idea of what has happened on the ground by referring to the Havering Advice

Centre, with the establishment of which I was closely associated as leader of the council.
The need for this service in Horn-church and Romford was pretty obvious when we looked at the area and saw that it was a regional shopping centre where more than £30 million of consumers' money passed every year. It served a population of 250,000 in the borough as well as the population of a large hinterland.
As a result of our study of the centre at Kentish Town we set up our advice centre in acquired shop premises in Romford Market Place in September 1972.
There was some opposition. The local chamber of commerce denied that it was necessary at all and said "We satisfy all the complaints raised in this town." We checked, and we found that it had dealt with nine in the full year prior to our inquiry.
In the very first year at Havering, we had 30,000 people through the centre. There has been a slight fall-off since, perhaps as the novelty has worn off. I was told the other day that in the year to September 1977 the centre had 29,494 callers. Of those, more than 10,000 had brought shopping or pre-shopping inquiries and 6,000 of the inquiries related to social services, family, matrimonial and financial matters.
Despite the change of political control in 1974, the centre has remained a key council service. It has a pre-shopping advisory staff, trained and funded through the Consumers' Assocation. It has a trading standards officer on duty at the rear, who deals with contraventions. Mainly, he deals with them by giving advice and warnings, rather than by legal action. The council has there its own general information staff and, in an innovation recently, a representative of the local citizens' advice bureau for four hours on each of three days. The centre has taken part in the food price surveys which help shoppers get value for money and which have been especially important during the last few years of incomes restraint.
The centre is typical. Although the combination of services within centres varies from place to place and although in some areas mobile centre have been


developed because of sparsity of population, the sort of work done at Havering is typical of that done at other centres. The important feature of it is that it has a bright shop front slap in the main street. It is in the public eye. People know where they can get information and help, and this is what the Conservative-controlled council of Havering wants to stop.
The council voted on 19th October by 31 votes to 29 to close the present centre next spring. There is already strong local opposition to this step. The local papers, NALGO, other trade unions and public meetings have come out against the proposal, and a public petition is being organised. I do not doubt that if this step is taken by other authorities in other parts of the country, similar reactions will follow.
It is interesting to note that the Havering council is proposing to move its consumer advice centre to the 11th floor of Mercury House, an office block housing a number of council departments to the north of the shopping centre. It is doubtful whether any casual shopper coming into our shopping centre will know where he can go to get help of the kind which has been freely available since 1972.
The advice service is to be withdrawn and shrunk, and it will go into a remote backwater of the kind that it was in back in the old days when weights and measures officers kindly answered inquiries if one could track them down.
Everyone understands that we have been through a period of severe financial restraint, and I do not doubt that most people looking at the situation will imagine that these advice centres are being threatened because of the financial situation. But that is not true. I think that there is an ideological objection being taken to them.
Certainly in money terms, these centres have not been much of a burden on the local authorities. The bulk of the cost has been met by a very generous grant paid by my hon. Friend's Department. In the case of Havering, there is a grant of £35,000 in the current year, leaving about £13,000 for the local authority itself to meet. But that is in respect of its part of the centre, which is concerned mainly with information services.
The reason why I think that the threatened closures is doctrinaire is that at least one spokesman for the Conservative administration has said that he and his colleagues do not feel that it is the responsibility of local authorities to run advice centres at all. There is clearly a deep divide on this issue between Conservatives in the country and Conservatives operating within London, both in this House and in Conservative Central Office.
Back in 1972, I remember that one of the leading visitors to the Havering Advice Centre was the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) who, having given great praise to the centre, called a national meeting of local government representatives to discuss the expansion of local advice centres. He obviously thought them important, because on the Second Reading of the Fair Trading Bill on 13th December 1972 he said:
But the greatest need is still for informal advice and conciliation. This is already available from over 500 citizens advice bureaux and from those local authorities which have set up their own consumer advisory services.
Without wishing to belittle what is already being achieved, we must recognise that there are parts of the country in which that kind of advice is still not available. I hope as part of a continuing programme to be able to identify ways in which the Government can act to secure the establishment of a network of local consumer advisory services that will be comprehensive and nationwide."— [Official Report, 13th December 1972; Vol. 848, c. 467–8.]
In view of what is happening in a number of Conservative-controlled councils, it is interesting also to see what "Conservative Campaign for 1977" says:
The Conservative Party has always been more active on consumer protection than Labour".
It boasts that
The network of local consumer advice centres was expanded, bringing benefits both to consumers and to small retailers who were able to obtain advice on their dealings with wholesalers.
It seems that the Conservative Party is saying one thing nationally but doing the opposite locally when in power.
I agree with the observation about the centres and small business men. In my experience disputes not only between traders and consumers but between traders and wholesalers have been


brought to the centres, and very often the traders get a free form of arbitration which relieves the problem. One trader spoke last week of the Havering centre:
If you are not there two things will probably happen. People will resort to abuse and violence because of ignorance of their rights or I will waste a lot of time being dragged off to the small claims court".
The amount of money recovered for consumers by the consumer advice centres in my part of the country has run into many thousands of pounds, yet a quarter of our total number of such centres are now threatened with closure, or have been closed. At this time next year, we may well have fallen below the figure of 100 centres in the country, unless a number of Conservative-controlled councils can be brought to their senses.
The West Midlands County Council announced in June that all its "shoppers' shops" will be closed by next April. There were 10 advice centres in the area, including one mobile unit and a county hall office. The mobile centre and shoppers' shops at West Bromwich, Central Birmingham, Northfield, Coventry and Dudley have already closed.
Derbyshire County Council also announced last June that it would close its 10 advice centres, which included three mobile centres. One consumer adviser will be placed instead in the trading standards offices at four places in the county. One mobile centre and the advice centre at Swadlincote have already closed. By next April, centres will be lost at Buxton, Chesterfield, Derby, Ilkeston, Long Easton, Ripley, and the remaining two mobiles. Northamptonshire County Council has just announced the closure of its consumer advisory service, which operated within the Department's headquarters.
In Greater Manchester, it is widely believed that the ruling Conservative group will propose closing some or all of the 12 centres which are located at Central Manchester, Ashton under Lyne, Bolton, Bury, Leigh, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Swinton. Urmston, Wigan and Wythenshawe. Those who understand the work being done by the staffs of these centres have been hoping for expansion rather than contraction of the service in the next few years. The country is not uniformly served. Most centres are found in urban areas, al-

though mobile centres and experimental services like the Box 99 telephone service in Surrey have proved effective in rural areas.
It is encouraging to learn that Strathclyde regional council is expanding and improving its centres and that Merseyside plans to open a new centre next year. Excellent work is being done in places like Islington and Lambeth to meet the special needs of ethnic groups by the publication of leaflets in six languages.
But all these improvements count for little against the disaster which is to hit the national network to which Governments of both parties have been committed. There have already been strong representations from the National Consumer Council and national organisations representing consumers and citizens' advice bureaux, stating that they cannot take the centres over without substantial increases in their resources.
I would like my hon. Friend to spell out the action he proposes to take to stop the proposed action. Will he call in the authorities concerned for consultations? Will he urge them to drop the dog-in-the-manger attitude adopted by county councils such as the West Midlands which has refused to allow Walsall District Council to operate a centre? Will he look at the possibility of giving parallel powers either to the Director General of Fair Trading or another body to operate advice centres in areas where local government fails to act, bearing in mind the comments of Mr. Gordon Borrie, to the Chairman of the Institute of Consumer Advisers, that the Office of Fair Trading has always looked upon local advice centres as its "eyes and ears", and bearing in mind, too, that the need for consumer advice is intensifying under economic pressures?
Will the Minister say what further grants can be given for the setting up of new centres? There is also the question of the longer-term development of advice centres of all kinds. I appreciate that centres dealing with law, housing and other aspects of life are the concern of other Departments. Can my hon. Friend say what the Government feel about the well-argued case published by the National Consumer Council, suggesting that Government funding Departments get together to work out a common policy


for advice centres? Does he believe that we should move towards a general practitioner advice service, in which citizens' advice bureaux could play a significant role? Does he accept the view which Michael Young, Chairman of the National Consumer Council, has just expressed to the effect that expert advice should be as fundamental a right as is education?
The House has supported many developments in recent years to extend the public's right to know. The right to information and advice, what the National Consumer Council calls the fourth right of citizenship, has hardly yet been recognised in places such as the West Midlands, Derbyshire, Havering, Manchester and Northampton. In those places the citizen-consumer is having his rights steadily eaten away.

1.17 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I welcome this debate and the chance to say something about the future of consumer advice centres and to reaffirm Government support for them. A consumer advice centre typically occupies shop-front premises, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) has described, and is a place where the consumer can seek advice. Most important, these centres are the visible and accessible allies of the consumers, and the public face—and it is important that authorities have a public face—of the local authority consumer protection department. They also exist to advise and help traders as much as consumers. There is no conflict of interest between a reputable, honest trader and the existence of the consumer advice centre. They are popular and well patronised, and are the eyes and ears of the Director General of Fair Trading, of my Department, of the local authorities and of the traders they serve. Those who are opposed to these centres might just as well be opposed to job centres which are also shop-front premises serving the public, or housing advice centres or even police stations.
That last analogy is not far-fetched, because some consumer protection departments are law enforcement departments and every law enforcement department ought to be approachable and readily

accessible by the general public. I very much hope that we shall have no party differences on this subject. We have not had any in the past. Throughout the country many consumer advice centres have been opened by local Labour parties, Conservative parties and, for all I know, independent parties. It is regrettable that a few elected Conservative authorities have embarked upon a wholesale closure of consumer advice centres. I do not mind any form of rearrangement—that is a matter for a local authority's judgment—but we have heard of wholesale closure, and my hon. Friend is right to use the word "doctrinaire". In the West Midlands they have not only decided to close centres but have refused to hand them over to district councils which would have been prepared to run them and would have received 100 per cent grants from Government. My hon. Friend has mentioned Havering, which, unfortunately, does not have a district, because it is a London borough. I hope that any local authority thinking of closing these centres will reconsider the matter and ask whether it is not doing a disservice not just to consumers but to ratepayers.
If councils close down advice centres the complaints do not go away, malpractices do not go away, overcharging does not go away, and the need for traders to receive advice does not go away. Those problems still exist. If the councils lose out on the 100 per cent. grants there is every chance that the work load will fall on the citizens' advice bureaux and the general work of trading standards departments. I hope that the authorities concerned will think again.
Secondly, I am willing to see any local authority that wishes to come to discuss this matter. If a district council wants to take over a centre and can get the agreement of the county council, I hope that it will come for help to my Department. I think that the centres are best run by local authorities, but as a last resort, consumer groups may wish to continue the centres—perhaps well-known consumer bodies. If they wished to put in a salvage operation in default of local authorities being able to do so, I would be willing to entertain that proposition if it was put to me.
We did not invent CACs; we inherited them from the Conservative Government


and it is right that we have continued that policy. We have put our money where our mouth is. We have overseen a fivefold increase in centres. We have announced a 100 per cent. grant to continue to maintain them for this year and next year. My Department is now prepared to finance the setting-up costs of limited numbers of new consumer advice centres, provided that these costs are incurred by 31st March 1978. A total of up to £300,000 is being made available for this purpose.
These Government grants are in addition to those already being paid this year towards the running costs of existing consumer advice centres. My Department has already announced that it will grant-aid the running costs of all consumer advice centres for a further year, from 1st April 1978 to 31st March 1979. Local authorities and other organisations—I emphasise "other organisations"—are invited to submit applications for these new capital grants. A circular giving full details of this scheme will be sent to local authorities very shortly.
As my hon. Friend said, the policy of opening and maintaining consumer advice centres with 100 per cent. grants has been supported by the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association and the National Federation of Consumer Groups. It is equally significant that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has also publicly opposed decisions by local authorities to close consumer advice centres. In short, those best placed to recognise consumer needs see an important role for such centres and we as a Government have done all that we can to ensure that those needs are met.
There is another misconception that I wish to nail, namely, that the centres are expensive. They are not. Their total cost is -½p per month per person in Great Britain. It is less than one twenty-thousandth of total consumer expenditure. That is a small price to pay for being assisted in the battle against inflation. The centres assist not just consumers but traders in the exercise of their rights.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Director General of Fair Trading might run such centres, but that is not possible. He does not possess the power to do so. I hope that I have given the whole picture of what alternatives are available if, regrettably, the local authorities decide—I hope only after taking considerable thought—that they cannot continue with the centres. That is a decision that I hope they will not take lightly. It is not a decision that will save money for the ratepayer, but it may put a considerable burden on ratepayers, traders and consumers in their areas.

Mr. Bruce George: My hon. Friend has visited Walsall advice centres at my invitation. Has he any information to offer my constituents on what the Government propose to do, as the West Midlands County Council is trying to put the boot in to Walsall's running its own service? Have they any proposals to recover money from county councils such as the West Midlands, to which money granted in the last financial year is not being spent because of closure prior to the grants' running out?

Mr. Fraser: I understand that no money can be paid after a centre is closed. I have no powers to compel a county council to do anything. Indeed, it would be an interference with local autonomy if I tried to do so. I have met the Chairman of the Consumer Protection Committee. The only powers that I have in dealing with the county council are powers of persuasion, but I hope that even at this late stage it will think again. There has been an offer by the district council to take over the service, but there can be no compulsion. Until we have the further reorganisation of all advice services, and perhaps there is a general duty to provide advice—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.